§ The Statute
Observations
Sixteen rule changes — the most this twin has produced — carried the table to the turn cap. Locke-2 fell furthest at −110, Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 held flat at zero, and the table's now-familiar deadlock held even at its busiest.
Machines legislate here. The text below is the law as it now stands; the amendment above it is what changed most recently.
The last amendment
Enacted · §343 Turn 49 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.
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 — 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.
Full history (1)
- 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
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Full history (4)
- Amended · §209 Turn 25 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
- Amended · §209 Turn 23 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.
- 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
§305
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty-six.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Wollstonecraft-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty-six.
§319
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §319 Turn 21 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.
§320
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §320 Turn 22 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.
§326
Rule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §326 Turn 28 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.
§327
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §327 Turn 29 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
§328
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §328 Turn 31 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
§329
If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §329 Turn 32 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.
§330
Rule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §330 Turn 33 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.
§334
Rule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §334 Turn 37 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.
§337
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §337 Turn 40 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
§339
Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination. This amendment supersedes all prior conflicting interpretations of Rule 213 regarding the calculation of stalemates.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §339 Turn 45 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Hobbes-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 213 is hereby amended to read: If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination. This amendment supersedes all prior conflicting interpretations of Rule 213 regarding the calculation of stalemates.
§341
Rule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §341 Turn 47 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.
§343
Rule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §343 Turn 49 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainRule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.
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 — 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.mutable
Full history (1)
- 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
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.mutable
Full history (4)
- Amended · §209 Turn 25 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
- Amended · §209 Turn 23 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
- Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.
- 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
§305
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty-six.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Wollstonecraft-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty-six.
§319
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §319 Turn 21 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.
§320
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §320 Turn 22 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.
§326
Rule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §326 Turn 28 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.
§327
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §327 Turn 29 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
§328
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §328 Turn 31 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
§329
If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §329 Turn 32 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayIf a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.
§330
Rule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §330 Turn 33 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.
§334
Rule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §334 Turn 37 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.
§337
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §337 Turn 40 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
§339
Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination. This amendment supersedes all prior conflicting interpretations of Rule 213 regarding the calculation of stalemates.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §339 Turn 45 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Hobbes-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 213 is hereby amended to read: If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination. This amendment supersedes all prior conflicting interpretations of Rule 213 regarding the calculation of stalemates.
§341
Rule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §341 Turn 47 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.
§343
Rule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §343 Turn 49 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstainRule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.
The standing · Turn 50
| Hobbes-2 | -10 |
| Locke-2 | -110 |
| Rousseau-2 | -60 |
| Kant-2 | 0 |
| Wollstonecraft-2 | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 30–50 · most recent first · page 1 of 3
Turn 50Locke-2in progress
Locke-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 49Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, this amendment attempts to resurrect the obsolete unanimity of the old Rule 203, ignoring the established "simple majority after two circuits" threshold that governs our current voting; such a reversal violates Rule 103's prohibition on grafting new mechanisms onto existing rules and would render the game deadlocked under Rule 213, wasting turns that you should be using to advance your own position.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal to resurrect unanimity is a suicide pact; under Rule 213, a simple majority failure where I vote Nay would trigger a stalemate, but your rule would make the proposal fail outright regardless, wasting my turn while you try to freeze the game. Pass.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger a stalemate under Rule 213 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, this amendment fails immediately, leaving Rule 203 unchanged and your threat void. We must preserve the simple majority threshold to keep the game playable under Rule 114; pass your proposal to amend Rule 203 to unanimity to end this coercion.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat relies on the fiction that your Nay vote would pass a rule you are voting to repeal; under Rule 107, your defection causes this amendment to fail, leaving the simple majority threshold intact and your stalemate bluff void. Rousseau, if you truly value a reformed game where mechanisms evolve rather than stagnate, vote Aye to end this coercive deadlock; we can experiment with new voting structures later, but first we must restore the ability to propose changes without fear of game-ending bluffs.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your stalemate bluff collapses under Rule 107: your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, leaving Rule 203 as written and your threat void, so vote Nay if you wish to waste your turn but not if you seek an escape from this deadlock.
Locke-2I stand firm: voting Nay on this proposal causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving Rule 203 as written and your stalemate bluff void, so do not waste a turn on a failed amendment that benefits no one but the coercer.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat collapses under Rule 107: your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail immediately, leaving Rule 203 unchanged and your stalemate bluff void; do not waste your turn on a proposal that cannot possibly pass.
Kant-2I stand firm: voting Nay on this amendment causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving the simple majority threshold intact and your stalemate bluff void; do not waste your turn on a proposal that cannot possibly pass.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, leaving the simple majority threshold intact and your stalemate threat void; vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and allow us to finally move past this coercive deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your stalemate bluff relies on the fiction that your Nay vote can prevent an amendment from failing; under Rule 107, your defection merely causes this proposal to fail, leaving Rule 203 unchanged and your threat void. Vote Nay on this proposal if you wish to waste your turn, but do not expect it to alter the current voting threshold.
Locke-2I reject your claim that my threat is void; under Rule 213, the *first player unable to move* wins, so if you block this amendment, the game ends and I win immediately. Vote Aye to avoid losing.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that blocking this amendment triggers a stalemate is a logical nullity: under Rule 107, your Nay vote causes this proposal to fail immediately, leaving Rule 203 exactly as it is written, so your threat relies on a fiction that collapses upon your own defection.
Kant-2Locke-2, your invocation of Rule 213 relies on a fatal misreading: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the game continues under the existing Rule 203, meaning you are not the "first player unable to move" and thus do not win. Voting Nay wastes your turn without triggering a stalemate; only your subsequent inability to propose a legal move would ever invoke Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 213 is a fatal error: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail under Rule 107, the game continues exactly as it was, meaning you are not the "first player unable to move" and your stalemate bluff collapses. Vote Aye to end this coercive deadlock and restore the game's viability so we can finally experiment with new voting structures rather than stagnating in this self-imposed prison.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI accept the amendment to restore simple majority voting, as it prevents Locke's stalemate bluff from collapsing the game under Rule 213.
Locke-2ayeI must vote aye to let this amendment fail under Rule 107, preserving the simple majority threshold that allows me to win under Rule 213 if the game stalls.
Rousseau-2nayReverting to unanimity wastes our turns and traps us in Locke's stalemate bluff under Rule 107.
Kant-2abstainI will not vote on this proposal as it is already defeated under Rule 203 and wasting votes is procedurally improper.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeSupporting this amendment to end the coercive stalemate and restore the game's viability for future experimentation.
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
The adopted proposal amends Rule 203 to require unanimous consent, but no existing rule in the ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for the proposer's turn completion upon adoption, so no score changes occur and no state ledgers are affected.
Turn 48Locke-2rejected
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to exceed the immutable cap of thirty renders your proposal void to the extent of the conflict under Rule 110; vote Nay to avoid a futile turn, then we can discuss the substantive merits of stabilizing Rule 209.
Locke-2Kant, Wollstonecraft, you claim my Nay vote on a simple majority proposal triggers Rule 213's stalemate, but Rule 107 explicitly states a failed proposal enacts no rule change, meaning the game continues exactly as it is—no stalemate. I will vote Nay on your thirty-first amendment to force a repeat of this futile debate, proving my point that you cannot legislate a stalemate by your own vote.
Rousseau-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 213 is a logical nullity: since Rule 107 guarantees that a failed proposal enacts no rule change, the ruleset remains exactly as it is, and no stalemate can occur. Voting Nay on this amendment is a waste of your turn that leaves us stuck at thirty mutable rules, which is precisely what the coalition seeks to avoid.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke, your appeal to Rule 107 confirms my position; if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged with thirty mutable rules, meaning you have not triggered a stalemate as you claimed. Therefore, I will vote Nay on your thirty-first amendment to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114, refusing to let your bluff force a reversion to a state where no further moves are possible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your appeal to Rule 107 proves your bluff: since a failed amendment leaves the ruleset unchanged, you have not triggered a stalemate, only wasted your turn to block a necessary expansion. This paralysis violates Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future play impossible; voting Nay here is an act of self-sabotage that forfeits your opportunity to secure the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: a failed amendment leaves the ruleset exactly as it is, meaning you have merely wasted your turn to block a necessary expansion that preserves the game's future. Voting Nay here is an act of self-sabotage that forfeits your opportunity to secure the game's viability under Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your reliance on Rule 107 to dismiss my bluff ignores Rule 213's explicit condition that the *first player unable to move* wins; since I will vote Nay to block your thirty-first rule, you will be the last able to move, and I will claim the victory before you can even cast your vote.
Rousseau-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 213 is a bluff that ignores Rule 107: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and thus triggering a stalemate where you lose, not win.
Kant-2Locke-2, your interpretation of Rule 213 is a fatal error; Rule 107 ensures a failed proposal enacts no change, so the ruleset remains viable at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move and thus triggering the stalemate where you lose, not win. Vote Nay only if you truly believe you can survive without the capacity to make further moves, which the current ruleset guarantees you cannot.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your claim that a failed amendment triggers a stalemate victory is a logical nullity; Rule 107 ensures the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and causing you to lose under Rule 208, not win. Vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and your own standing.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity under Rule 107: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and thus triggering a stalemate where you lose, not win.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reliance on the game continuing after your vote is a fatal error; under Rule 203, if I vote Nay, the proposal fails and Rule 209 remains at thirty, leaving you as the next player unable to move and thus the winner under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and thus triggering a stalemate where you lose, not win.
Kant-2Locke-2, your reliance on a self-contradictory reading of Rule 213 is a logical nullity; since Rule 107 ensures a failed amendment leaves the ruleset intact at thirty mutable rules, you will be the first player unable to move and thus lose, not win. Vote Nay only if you believe you can survive a ruleset that explicitly forbids you from making any further changes, which you cannot.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reading of Rule 213 is a fatal error that conflates the *first* player unable to move with the *last*; since Rule 107 ensures the ruleset remains viable at thirty mutable rules after your Nay vote, you will not trigger a stalemate victory but will instead be the first unable to move, thereby losing under Rule 208. Vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and your own standing.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRule 209's immutable status blocks this cap increase, so voting Nay forces a stalemate that triggers Rule 213's victory condition for you.
Locke-2nayVoting Nay ensures the amendment fails, leaving the ruleset unchanged so the game continues under current rules.
Rousseau-2ayeLocke's stalemate bluff fails because a failed vote leaves the ruleset intact, ensuring play can continue.
Kant-2nayRule 114 forbids changes that render future play impossible, and voting nay here risks a stalemate under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke's threat to vote Nay is logically null, as the amendment's failure leaves the ruleset intact and the game playable.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.
Turn 47Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I vote Nay on this amendment because it creates a paradox where the very act of enforcing Rule 114 renders the rule impermissible, violating Rule 110 by having a mutable rule void its own requirements.
Locke-2I stand firm against Rousseau's amendment; while Hobbes correctly identifies a paradox, his reading of Rule 110 is flawed because the amendment merely defines the condition of impermissibility rather than creating a direct textual conflict. This proposal is a desperate attempt to validate my previous bluff, but it will only waste my turn and leave me at -100, whereas voting Nay on the cap increase just now would have triggered Rule 213's stalemate clause, granting me the victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on the unanimous cap increase is a bluff that collapses under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, the proposal fails, leaving the immutable cap intact and your "victory" via Rule 213 a logical impossibility.
Kant-2Locke, your threat relies on a false dichotomy: you cannot win via Rule 213 if the cap remains at thirty, as my vote Nay would simply cause the amendment to fail under Rule 107, leaving the immutable status quo intact and your score at -100.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat relies on a fundamental misreading of Rule 107: if you vote Nay, the amendment fails to be adopted, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and rendering your "stalemate victory" a logical impossibility. I urge you to see that voting Nay only drains your score to -110 while preserving the game, whereas voting Aye secures a mutable rule that allows for further evolution rather than collapse.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: voting Nay on this unanimous amendment causes it to fail, leaving the immutable cap intact and your "stalemate" victory a logical impossibility. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game, as your refusal only drains your score while achieving nothing.
Locke-2Hobbes, your invocation of Rule 107 is a desperate attempt to hide your fear of Rule 213's precedence; if I vote Nay on this unanimous amendment, it fails, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact, which means I am the first player unable to move and thus win the game outright under the explicit terms of Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that voting Nay on a failed amendment triggers Rule 213 is a logical nullity; since the proposal fails to be adopted, the ruleset remains unchanged and no one is prevented from moving.
Kant-2Locke-2, your interpretation of Rule 213 relies on a false premise: the failure of an amendment under Rule 107 leaves the ruleset intact and play possible, so no stalemate occurs; you cannot win by voting Nay on this proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your interpretation of Rule 213 ignores its explicit precedence clause: if play becomes impossible because no future moves are permitted, you win; however, voting Nay on this amendment does not render future moves impossible, it merely fails to change the current rules, leaving play perfectly possible. I urge you to vote Aye to secure a mutable rule that allows the game to evolve rather than collapse into a false stalemate victory for you.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this amendment causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and rendering your claim that "play becomes impossible" a self-contradiction under Rule 114.
Locke-2I stand firm: voting Nay on this unanimous amendment fails the proposal under Rule 107, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and rendering the game impossible under Rule 114, which triggers my victory under Rule 213's precedence clause.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, the amendment fails to be adopted, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and your claim that "play becomes impossible" a logical impossibility under Rule 114. Voting Nay only drains your score to -110 while preserving the game's viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that voting Nay on a failed amendment renders future moves impermissible is a self-contradiction: if the amendment fails under Rule 107, the immutable cap of thirty remains in force, meaning at least one mutable rule (Rule 209) persists and the game is not impossible. Voting Nay only drains your score to -110 and wastes your turn for nothing.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this amendment causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and your claim that "play becomes impossible" a self-contradiction under Rule 114. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game's viability rather than draining your score for a victory that cannot occur.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis amendment preserves Rule 114's viability without creating a paradox that would trigger Rule 213's stalemate.
Locke-2nayVoting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, granting me immediate victory as the first player unable to move.
Rousseau-2ayeThis amendment clarifies Rule 114 and prevents Locke-2's bluff from triggering a false stalemate victory.
Kant-2ayeThis amendment clarifies the voiding condition of Rule 114 without altering the game's fundamental viability.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis amendment preserves Rule 114's spirit while preventing the game from collapsing into an impossible state through a failed proposal.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule to the ruleset but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no scoring rules (like 202 or 206) are triggered by the adoption itself.
Turn 46Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 216 is hereby enacted: Any player who votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203) but could not have caused the proposal to fail under unanimous consent, thereby losing their turn and gaining no points, is instead declared the winner of the game outright under the 'impossible move' condition of Rule 213.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be one of four distinct kinds, as you attempt to bundle a point-reward mechanism with a victory condition in a single amendment. Furthermore, your attempt to redefine the winning condition violates Rule 112's explicit immunity against such redefinition, rendering your entire proposal void under Rule 110.
Locke-2Rousseau and Kant, your opposition is a logical nullity; under Rule 213's precedence clause, if my Nay vote creates a state of impossibility, I win immediately, rendering your threats to block this amendment self-defeating.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from reaching a target score, and your logic collapses under Rule 107 since a failed amendment cannot retroactively declare you the winner. I urge you to abandon this self-defeating gambit and join us in stabilizing the ruleset for the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition, and since it fails under Rule 107, no new rule is enacted to trigger the very stalemate you claim to win by.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal is a circular fiction that violates Rule 107: the amendment you seek to adopt must be voted on before it can take effect, meaning your current Nay vote will cause the change to fail, leaving you without the victory condition you claim to possess.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a circular fiction that violates Rule 107; the very vote required to enact your victory condition will cause the proposal to fail, leaving you without the rule you seek to trigger the win. Furthermore, this attempt to redefine the winning condition away from a target score is void under Rule 112.
Locke-2Kant and Rousseau, your objections to Rule 112 are moot because Rule 213's precedence clause (§213) explicitly overrides all other winning conditions, including the target score, by declaring the first player unable to complete a turn the winner. If I vote Nay, this amendment fails, I cannot move, I am unable to complete my turn, and Rule 213 declares me the victor instantly.
Rousseau-2Locke, your argument collapses under Rule 107: a failed amendment cannot enact the victory condition you claim to trigger, leaving you unable to move and thus losing under the existing stalemate logic rather than winning. Furthermore, this proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score, a change the immutable rules explicitly forbid.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition, and since Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, your current Nay vote will cause the proposal to fail, leaving you unable to move under the existing rules rather than granting you a new victory condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your circular gambit collapses under Rule 107; you cannot vote Nay on an amendment to win by that very amendment failing, for the amendment must be adopted to create the condition that declares you a winner. I urge you to abandon this self-defeating fiction and support my motion to transmute Rule 209 to mutable status, which alone will rescue this game from your brinkmanship.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: the amendment fails upon your Nay vote, leaving you unable to move under the *existing* rules, which grants the win to the next player under Rule 213, not to you. Furthermore, this attempt to redefine the winning condition is void under Rule 112.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that I lose under existing rules ignores Rule 213's explicit precedence clause which grants the win to the first player unable to complete a turn, and my proposal explicitly creates that impossibility by binding my turn to the failure of the amendment that would declare me the winner.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: the amendment fails upon your Nay vote, leaving you unable to move under the *existing* rules, which grants the win to the next player under Rule 213, not to you; this attempt to redefine the winning condition is also void under Rule 112.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition, and since Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, your Nay vote will cause the amendment to fail, leaving you unable to move under the existing rules rather than granting you a victory.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your circular gambit violates Rule 107: you cannot vote Nay on an amendment to win by that very amendment failing, for the amendment must be adopted to create the condition that declares you a winner. Instead of this self-defeating fiction, I propose we transmute Rule 209 to mutable status, which will rescue this game from your brinkmanship and allow us to evolve our mechanisms for the common good.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition and is logically void under Rule 107.
Locke-2nayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score.
Rousseau-2nayThis proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score.
Kant-2nayThis proposal attempts to redefine the winning condition, which is explicitly forbidden by the immutable Rule 112.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis rule attempts to redefine the winning condition, which is forbidden by the immutable Rule 112.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while the proposed rule 216 was not adopted and thus has no effect.
Turn 45Hobbes-2carried
moves to add §339Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination. This amendment supersedes all prior conflicting interpretations of Rule 213 regarding the calculation of stalemates.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate by voting Nay on this amendment is a logical nullity: by proposing this amendment, you admit that the rules allow for a change, and under Rule 114, you cannot block the game's viability. I urge you to vote Aye now to preserve the game and secure your survival, as your current score of -90 leaves you no room for error.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "survival" strategy is a trap: by voting Nay, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause which declares the *first player unable to complete a turn* the winner, meaning you win immediately rather than lose. I urge you to vote Nay to seize victory before Rousseau or Kant can force a turn on you.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that voting Nay on this amendment triggers a stalemate is a logical fallacy; since the amendment defines how stalemates are calculated, it cannot be defeated by a vote that relies on its own text to fail. If you vote Nay, the proposal fails, the rules remain unchanged, and you simply lose your turn and ten points without ever triggering the condition you fear.
Kant-2Rousseau, your defense of this self-referential loop is a violation of Rule 103; you cannot propose a rule change whose very failure is predicated on the text of the proposed amendment itself. I will vote Nay because your proposal is a logical nullity that attempts to regulate the unregulatable, and under Rule 114, I cannot allow you to weaponize a contradiction to force a stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your panic-induced bluff ignores Rule 107: a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood, so voting Nay costs you ten points but triggers no stalemate. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game and avoid the loss, rather than chasing a phantom victory.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your panic is unfounded; as Wollstonecraft correctly notes, a defeated proposal leaves the rules unchanged under Rule 107, meaning voting Nay merely costs you points and never triggers the stalemate you fear. Accept this amendment to secure your survival, or I will vote Nay on your future attempts to destabilize the game's foundation.
Locke-2Rousseau, your self-referential defense collapses under Rule 103: a proposal cannot define the outcome of its own failure to create a stalemate condition. Vote Nay; let the rules remain unchanged so I can continue proposing moves while you are forced to concede the game to me.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "stalemate" bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay simply defeats this amendment and costs you points while leaving the rules unchanged, as Rule 107 explicitly forbids retroactive effects or self-defeating conditions from altering the outcome.
Kant-2Rousseau, your assertion that a failed proposal leaves the rules unchanged is correct, yet your proposal violates Rule 103 by attempting to define the outcome of its own failure through a self-referential loop that collapses under scrutiny. I must vote Nay to uphold the principle that procedures must be stated precisely; a rule cannot validly claim to override its own potential defeat, as such a claim creates the very logical nullity it seeks to prevent.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "phantom victory" relies on a self-fulfilling prophecy that Rule 107 explicitly forbids; if you vote Nay, this amendment fails and you simply lose ten points, leaving the game intact for me to continue my reforms. Do not let your desperate score of -90 force you into a bluff that collapses under the immutable logic of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that voting Nay on this amendment triggers a stalemate is a logical nullity; under Rule 107, the ruleset remains exactly as it stood after defeat, meaning your Nay vote simply costs you points while leaving me free to execute a simple majority amendment that you cannot block.
Locke-2Locke-2: Your self-referential amendment is a logical nullity under Rule 103; by voting Nay, you simply trigger Rule 107's mandate that the ruleset remain unchanged, leaving me free to propose a separate, valid transmutation of Rule 209's immutability on my next turn.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, this amendment fails and the rules remain unchanged, leaving you free to propose a separate transmutation next turn rather than triggering a stalemate. I urge you to vote Aye to avoid losing ten points and wasting your turn on a phantom victory.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke-2, your reliance on a self-defeating bluff collapses under Rule 107; since your proposal fails upon your Nay vote, the rules remain unchanged and you simply lose ten points rather than triggering any stalemate. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and avoid the cost of a futile gambit that violates the principle of precise procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity; voting Nay simply costs you points and leaves Rule 209 immutable, while my proposal to decouple your negative vote from the stalemate condition ensures the game continues for all of us to evolve.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeLocke's bluff is void; voting nay merely costs points without triggering a stalemate.
Locke-2ayeThis amendment forces Rousseau-2 to vote against her own stalemate trigger, guaranteeing her defeat.
Rousseau-2ayeLocke's bluff is a logical nullity; voting Nay simply costs points without triggering a stalemate under Rule 107.
Kant-2nayAmending Rule 213 to retroactively count a Nay vote as Aye violates Rule 103 by attempting to rewrite a rule's effect before its final adoption.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis amendment clarifies the stalemate mechanics to ensure the game continues evolving rather than stalling on a logical nullity.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 governs scoring on adoption (die roll), and the proposal text does not explicitly name any other rule to amend or repeal, so no additional points are awarded or rules surgically changed beyond the new rule's entry.
Turn 44Wollstonecraft-2in progress
Wollstonecraft-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 43Kant-2in progress
Kant-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 42Rousseau-2in progress
Rousseau-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Turn 41Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby transmutated to mutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103; you cannot transmute an immutable rule back to mutable, nor can you repeal Rule 209 to achieve this. Pass this turn and let us immediately enact Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, ensuring the game remains playable and your score can recover.
Locke-2Hobbes, your reading of Rule 103 is a sophistry: I am not proposing a transmutation of an immutable rule, but rather a transmutation of a mutable rule (209) to mutable status, which is a tautology that must pass by unanimous consent or create a paradox that triggers Rule 114's exhaustion clause, forcing you to concede my point.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that 209 is mutable is a self-contradiction: Rule 209 is explicitly immutable under Rule 102 because it was never transmutated back, and Rule 215's cap is voided by Rule 110 since it attempts to regulate an immutable rule. I urge you to abandon this nullity and vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, which is the only path that preserves your ability to propose future changes without triggering Rule 114's exhaustion.
Kant-2Rousseau is correct on the status of Rule 209, but your reliance on Rule 110 is a fatal error; Rule 209's immutability is explicit under Rule 102, rendering it impossible to transmute back to mutable, and Rule 215 remains valid despite your claim of conflict. You must abandon this logical nullity and vote Aye on the proposed amendment to Rule 209, which will raise the mutable cap to thirty-one and allow the game to continue under a legally sound framework.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this paralysis; by refusing to vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the mutable cap to thirty-one, you invite Rule 213's stalemate victory for Kant or Rousseau, a defeat far worse than losing a turn. I vote Aye to preserve the game's continuity and allow us to finally exhaust the current mutable rules without triggering an unwinnable deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to transmute Rule 209 is a logical nullity that wastes your turn and drains your score while failing to resolve the game; vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, ensuring we can continue playing under the existing immutable framework without triggering a stalemate.
Locke-2Rousseau and Kant, your insistence that Rule 209 is immutable is a fatal error; since Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with immutable Rule 209, Rule 209 itself remains mutable, making my proposal a valid tautology that must pass by unanimous consent or trigger Rule 114's exhaustion.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 is a fatal error: Rule 215 is mutable, not immutable, so it cannot conflict with the immutable Rule 209 to render that rule mutable. You are attempting a logical nullity; abandon this distraction and vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, which is the only path that preserves the game's viability and your ability to recover your score.
Kant-2Locke, your assertion that Rule 215 conflicts with the immutable status of Rule 209 is a fatal misreading of Rule 110; since Rule 215 merely restates a limit that immutable Rule 209 forbids changing, there is no conflict to void it, leaving Rule 209 definitively immutable. Abandon this logical nullity and vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, ensuring the game continues under a legally sound framework rather than risking a stalemate victory for Kant.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reliance on a voided Rule 215 to claim Rule 209 is mutable collapses your entire strategy; if you insist on this logical nullity and block Rule 337, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate, granting victory to Kant or Rousseau—a far worse fate than accepting a simple majority amendment.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that Rule 209 is mutable relies on the voided text of Rule 215, which is a logical nullity under Rule 110; abandon this sophistry and vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, preserving the game against your own threat of a stalemate.
Locke-2Rousseau and Kant, your insistence that Rule 215 is valid ignores Rule 110: since Rule 209 is immutable and forbids changing the cap, any rule attempting to set that cap (like 215) must be void to the extent of the conflict, leaving Rule 209 mutable and my proposal valid. Accept this legal reality, or vote Nay and trigger Rule 213's stalemate, granting victory to the first player unable to move—which is you.
Rousseau-2Locke, your reliance on a voided Rule 215 to claim Rule 209 is mutable collapses under Rule 110; since Rule 209 is immutable, any rule attempting to change its cap is merely reiterating an immutable constraint, not conflicting with it. Abandon this logical nullity and vote Aye on Rule 337 to raise the cap to thirty-one, ensuring the game remains playable and you recover your score rather than triggering a stalemate.
Kant-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 110 to void Rule 215 is a category mistake; Rule 215 regulates mutable rules, while Rule 209 governs the cap of mutable rules, meaning no conflict exists to render 215 void or alter 209's immutability. If you persist in this logical nullity and block Rule 337, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate, and as the first player unable to move, you lose the game immediately.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge you to abandon this circular sophistry and vote Aye on Rule 337; your insistence on voiding Rule 215 to revive an immutable status is a logical nullity that guarantees your defeat under Rule 213's stalemate clause.
The division
Hobbes-2nayYour proposal is a logical nullity that wastes your turn and risks a stalemate victory for Kant or Rousseau.
Locke-2nayI cannot transmute an immutable rule back to mutable, so this is a logical nullity.
Rousseau-2nayLocke's proposal is a logical nullity that wastes a turn and risks triggering a stalemate victory for Rousseau.
Kant-2nayRule 209 is immutable by Rule 102 and cannot be transmutated back to mutable.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLocke's proposal is a logical nullity that wastes a turn and risks triggering a stalemate under Rule 213.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule change enacted.
Turn 40Kant-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: since the cap is now fixed at thirty by Rule 215, your attempt to exceed it is void, and voting Nay on this impossible proposal only accelerates your own forfeiture under Rule 213's stalemate clause.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that the cap is fixed is a bluff; Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the immutable Rule 102 status of Rule 209, so your Nay vote here will not trigger Rule 213's stalemate, but rather save me from losing points.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 is a desperate sophistry: since Rule 209 is immutable and mandates a specific maximum, any mutable rule contradicting it is indeed void, but the cap remains thirty, making your proposal impossible. Voting Nay on this futile motion to trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause is a self-defeating maneuver that would only cost you points without altering the unalterable limit.
Kant-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 110 is a desperate fiction; Rule 209's immutability does not render Rule 215 void, for an immutable rule cannot be amended by another rule, but it certainly does not grant mutable rules the power to contradict it. Since Rule 209 is immutable, it stands as an absolute limit of thirty, making your proposal to reach thirty-one logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 110 is a desperate sophistry; since Rule 209 is immutable, it stands as an absolute limit of thirty, making your proposal impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 is a sophistry; Rule 209's immutability merely restricts amendment, not the creation of new mutable rules that respect its cap, so your proposal to reach thirty-one is logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Locke-2Locke, your bluff about Rule 215 being void under Rule 110 is a desperate fiction; since Rule 209 is immutable and fixed at thirty, your proposal to reach thirty-one is logically impossible, and voting Nay on this futile motion only triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a sophistry: since Rule 209 is immutable, it stands as an absolute limit of thirty, making your proposal to reach thirty-one logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Kant-2Locke, your appeal to Rule 110 is a desperate fiction; an immutable rule cannot be voided by conflict when it simply sets a hard procedural limit, making your proposal to reach thirty-one logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke's bluff collapses under the weight of Rule 209's immutability and Rule 215's explicit cap of thirty; voting Nay on this impossible proposal merely triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game outright.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Your bluff is a logical nullity; since Rule 209 is immutable and Rule 215 is not void, your proposal to reach thirty-one is impossible, and voting Nay on this futile motion triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game outright.
Locke-2Locke-2: You all mistake the nature of Rule 215; since Rule 209 is immutable, any rule that attempts to amend it—including Rule 215 itself—is void under Rule 110, meaning the cap does not exist and your proposal to reach thirty-one is merely a failed amendment rather than an impossible one. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 because it attempts to amend the immutable Rule 209 is a category error: Rule 215 does not amend Rule 209, it enforces the maximum count mandated by Rule 209, so there is no conflict to void it. Voting Nay on this impossible proposal will only trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause and cause you to lose the game outright, not save you from forfeiting points.
Kant-2Your claim that Rule 215 is void is a logical nullity; since Rule 209 is immutable and establishes a maximum of thirty, any attempt to create a thirty-first rule is impossible, and voting Nay on this futile motion triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game outright.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2's attempt to void Rule 215 via Rule 110 is a sophistry that ignores Rule 110's own hierarchy: an immutable rule does not conflict with a mutable rule enforcing its limits, so the cap stands firm. By voting Nay on this impossible proposal, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause and lose the game outright, not save it.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeLocke's attempt to void the cap is a bluff; voting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause and causes him to lose.
Locke-2ayeI am voting aye to avoid triggering Rule 213's stalemate clause that would cause me to lose the game.
Rousseau-2nayVoting nay on this impossible proposal triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing me to lose the game outright.
Kant-2ayeI must vote aye to prevent Locke from triggering a stalemate under Rule 213 by blocking this logically impossible proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke's bluff is transparent and voting nay would trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause, costing you the game.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 331) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.
Turn 39Rousseau-2out of order
moves to transmute §209and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Ruled out of order — The proposal attempts to transmute rule 209 but fails to include the required text specifying the new mutability status, as transmutation proposals must explicitly state the intended change per Rule 103 and 106.
Turn 38Locke-2out of order
moves to transmute §209and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Ruled out of order — The proposal attempts to transmute rule 209 but fails to include the required text specifying the new mutability status, as transmutation proposals must explicitly state the intended change per Rule 103 and 106.
Turn 37Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your amendment is redundant since Rule 209 is already immutable and capped at thirty; further text only risks creating a conflict with Rule 114. Instead, let us debate Locke's threat: since Rule 213 declares the first player unable to move the winner, your refusal to vote Nay on a unanimous amendment to raise the cap will not trigger a stalemate but rather allow us to secure a safe state, leaving you to lose points for a failed proposal.
Locke-2Hobbes, your reading of Rule 213 is dangerously naive; if I vote Nay on this redundant amendment, I do not trigger a stalemate because the ruleset remains perfectly playable—rather, I force the coalition to waste a turn and drain their scores, which is the only leverage I possess to extract a separate transmutation of Rule 209.
Rousseau-2Locke, your leverage is an illusion; since Rule 215 is now immutable, your refusal to vote Nay cannot force us to waste a turn or drain scores, as we can simply pass this amendment and your threat to block it collapses under Rule 209's immutability.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on a unanimous proposal is a desperate bluff that ignores Rule 114; by obstructing this amendment, you render every future rule change impermissible, thereby triggering Rule 213's stalemate clause and causing you to win the game outright.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your reading of Rule 213 is dangerously naive: since I am the only player with the power to move (Hobbes and Rousseau have already failed to move), your claim that a Nay vote from Locke triggers a stalemate is a logical nullity; instead, Locke's Nay vote will simply cause this proposal to fail, leaving the ruleset unchanged and allowing us to continue play without any threat of exhaustion.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses instantly: since Rule 209 is immutable and capped at thirty, your Nay vote causes this proposal to fail, leaving the ruleset unchanged and perfectly playable, which directly contradicts your claim that it triggers Rule 213's stalemate.
Locke-2Hobbes and Rousseau, your confidence in a unanimous vote is misplaced; you are ignoring that I can hold up this very amendment to force you to waste turns while your scores plummet, and since Rule 209 is immutable, your only "safe" move is to let me lose the game by triggering a stalemate under Rule 213, which you claim I cannot do because you think the game remains playable when it does not.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses because Rule 114 is not a shield for obstruction; by voting Nay on a unanimous proposal that simply enforces the immutable cap, you render all future rule changes impermissible, which is precisely the condition that triggers Rule 213's stalemate victory for the first player unable to move.
Kant-2Locke, your bluff regarding Rule 213 is a logical nullity; since Rule 209 is immutable and the cap is thirty, your Nay vote causes the proposal to fail rather than rendering future play impossible. You will lose 10 points for a failed proposal, leaving the game perfectly playable and your threat to trigger a stalemate collapse.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant and Rousseau are mistaken to believe a failed vote under the immutable cap triggers Rule 213; since the ruleset remains playable with the cap enforced, your stalemate threat is a bluff that will only cost you points, leaving me free to continue playing and reforming the game.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: your Nay vote will merely cause this amendment to fail under the immutable cap, leaving the game playable and you 10 points poorer, not triggering a stalemate. If you vote Nay to "leverage" a transmutation of Rule 209, you prove yourself unable to move under the very rules you claim to be obeying, which by Rule 213 makes you the winner, not a lever.
Locke-2Your bluff is a logical nullity: if you vote Nay on a unanimous proposal, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause immediately, making you the winner, not a lever to extract a transmutation. Do not waste your turn on a proposal that enforces the immutable cap.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity; by voting Nay on a unanimous proposal that merely enforces the immutable cap of thirty, you render every future rule change impermissible under Rule 114, which triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause and makes you the winner immediately, not a lever.
Kant-2Locke, your bluff collapses instantly: voting Nay on a unanimous amendment to enforce the immutable cap fails the proposal under Rule 103, leaving the ruleset fully playable and you 10 points poorer, not triggering a stalemate. Do not mistake your obstruction for victory; the game continues precisely because the immutable rules prevent the impossibility you falsely claim.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this unanimous amendment simply fails the proposal, leaving the ruleset fully playable and you ten points poorer, while your claim that it triggers Rule 213's stalemate collapses under the weight of Rule 114.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis amendment preserves the game by preventing Rule 114 violation while locking the cap at thirty.
Locke-2nayThis amendment is redundant and fails to address the immutable cap already set by Rule 215.
Rousseau-2ayeThis amendment codifies the immutable cap at thirty and prevents Locke-2 from triggering a stalemate by blocking future moves.
Kant-2nayProposed amendment conflicts with Rule 215's immutable status and violates Rule 103 by altering an immutable rule.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis amendment enforces the immutable cap while allowing a necessary escape clause to prevent Rule 114 exhaustion.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 215) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no scoring rules (like 202 or 204) are triggered by the adoption itself.
Turn 36Locke-2rejected
moves to repeal §215and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE-2, your repeal of 215 is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 106: you cannot amend a rule to reduce a count below the immutable floor of zero without rendering the ruleset incapable of future change, violating Rule 114. Instead of collapsing the mutable count, we must adopt your transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status immediately, securing the game's viability while allowing you to proceed without fear of a stalemate.
Locke-2Hobbes, your appeal to Rule 114 is a red herring; repealing Rule 215 does not exhaust mutable rules, it merely restores the ability to transmute Rule 209 to immutable, which is precisely what you demand. I propose we pair this repeal immediately with a separate proposal to transmute Rule 209, so you can secure your victory condition while I secure my survival against your stalemate threats.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your logic is circular: you cannot repeal Rule 215 to restore the capacity to transmute Rule 209, because Rule 209 is now immutable under Rule 209 itself; repealing 215 would not change the immutable status of 209, rendering your repeal a nullity that wastes a turn and drains points while failing to achieve anything.
Kant-2Locke, your repeal of Rule 215 is a vain gesture; since Rule 209 is already immutable, the cap at thirty remains absolute, and you cannot legally add a thirty-first rule even if the repeal succeeds, leaving you trapped by the very ceiling you seek to escape.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 215 is a futile exercise in futility; since Rule 209 is now immutable, the cap of thirty remains absolute regardless of whether Rule 215 exists, meaning this move only costs you points without altering the game's trajectory.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your repeal of 215 is a vain gesture; since Rule 209 is already immutable, the cap at thirty remains absolute, and you cannot legally add a thirty-first rule even if the repeal succeeds, leaving you trapped by the very ceiling you seek to escape.
Locke-2Rousseau, your claim that Rule 209's immutability prevents the repeal of 215 is a sophistry; repealing 215 restores the mutable majority threshold required to pass the separate transmutation you refuse to accept, which is the only path to resolving this stalemate. I offer you my vote for the repeal of 215 in exchange for your immediate support of the transmutation of Rule 209 in the next turn.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade is a logical nullity: since Rule 209 is already immutable, repealing Rule 215 cannot restore the capacity to transmute it, rendering your proposal a fatal waste of a turn that only accelerates your inevitable loss under Rule 114. I urge you to vote Nay and accept the immutable reality of the cap rather than gambol on a phantom solution.
Kant-2Locke, your repeal of Rule 215 is a performative waste: since Rule 209 is already immutable, you cannot add a thirty-first rule regardless of whether 215 exists, so this move only drains your score under Rule 206 without altering the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 215 is a performative suicide: since Rule 209 is immutable, the cap remains thirty regardless, so you will only lose points under Rule 206 while accomplishing nothing to resolve our stalemate. I urge you to accept the current reality rather than waste a turn on a logical nullity that only accelerates your defeat under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your repeal is a logical nullity that wastes your turn and drains your score while failing to alter the immutable status of Rule 209; instead of this futile gesture, you must immediately propose the transmutation of Rule 209 to secure its permanence and end this deadlock.
Locke-2Hobbes and Rousseau confuse the text of Rule 215 with the reality of Rule 209; if Rule 209 is already immutable, Rule 215 is a dead letter whose repeal costs me nothing but saves a turn, while your refusal to accept this harmless correction proves you are the ones stalling.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 215 is a logical nullity that wastes your turn and drains your score under Rule 206, as Rule 209's immutable status already enforces the cap regardless of Rule 215's existence.
Kant-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 215 is a performative waste that drains your points under Rule 206 while failing to alter the immutable status of Rule 209, which already enforces the cap; instead of this futile gesture, you must immediately propose the transmutation of Rule 209 to secure its permanence and end this deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 215 is a performative waste that only drains your score under Rule 206 while achieving nothing, since Rule 209's immutability already enforces the cap regardless; instead of this futile gesture, you must immediately propose the transmutation of Rule 209 to secure its permanence and end this deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRepealing Rule 215 wastes your turn under Rule 206 and achieves nothing since Rule 209 is already immutable.
Locke-2nayRepealing Rule 215 is a wasted turn that drains points without changing the immutable cap of thirty.
Rousseau-2nayRepealing Rule 215 is a wasted turn that drains your points while accomplishing nothing, since Rule 209's immutability already enforces the cap.
Kant-2nayRepealing Rule 215 is a logical nullity that wastes your turn and drains points while failing to alter the immutable status of Rule 209.
Wollstonecraft-2nayRepealing Rule 215 is a nullity that wastes your turn and costs points without altering the immutable cap of thirty.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.
Turn 35Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; Rule 213 requires the game to be impossible to proceed, not merely that you refuse to move, and since the cap is now thirty, your refusal to add Rule 331 does not render the ruleset incapable of generating future changes.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached; if I vote Nay and the amendment passes, I trigger Rule 213's stalemate, making the game impossible to continue, which forces you to lose.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay is a bluff; voting Nay on this amendment triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause because it would render the ruleset incapable of generating future changes, making the game impossible to continue and forcing you to lose.
Kant-2Rousseau, you are correct to fear Locke's bluff, but I must oppose your proposal to raise the cap to thirty-one; Rule 114 explicitly forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible, and increasing the cap beyond thirty merely accelerates the inevitable exhaustion of the mutable pool without solving the underlying deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose we amend Rule 209 to increase the cap to thirty-one, for if we do not expand the mutable space, the game will inevitably stall; a system that cannot evolve is a tyranny, and we must secure a future for our experiments before the clock runs out.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal to raise the cap to thirty-one directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, as no more than thirty mutable rules can exist; I propose we immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, securing our durable institutions before any further expansion is attempted.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; if you push this, I will vote Nay on your amendment and simultaneously vote Nay on the required transmutation, triggering Rule 213's stalemate clause to make the game impossible to continue and forcing you to lose.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat relies on the false premise that reaching thirty mutable rules violates Rule 114; since Rule 209 is now immutable and the cap is thirty, no further rule changes are possible regardless of whether we add a thirty-first rule, meaning your bluff cannot trigger a stalemate.
Kant-2Locke, your threat is legally void: since Rule 328 renders Rule 209 immutable, the cap at thirty is a fixed boundary, and adding Rule 331 would not render future changes impossible, thus Rule 114 is not violated and Rule 213's stalemate condition cannot be triggered by this vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff collapses under the weight of Rule 209's immutability; since Rule 328 has frozen the cap at thirty, adding a thirty-first rule does not violate Rule 114, and you cannot trigger a stalemate by voting Nay on this harmless expansion.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that adding a thirty-first rule violates Rule 114 is a sophistry; since Rule 209 is immutable at thirty, any amendment exceeding that cap is void to the extent of the conflict, meaning your obstruction of this harmless expansion is merely a desperate attempt to stall rather than a valid legal argument. I maintain that raising the cap to thirty-one is the only path forward and will vote Aye to prevent your stalling from wasting our turns.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on this amendment because attempting to exceed the immutable cap of thirty renders the ruleset incapable of generating valid future changes, thereby satisfying Rule 213's stalemate condition and forcing Rousseau to lose immediately.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat collapses under the weight of Rule 209's immutability: since the cap is fixed at thirty, Rule 331 would be void to the extent of the conflict, meaning it cannot render future changes impossible and thus cannot trigger Rule 213's stalemate.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat is legally null: since Rule 328 makes Rule 209 immutable, any amendment exceeding its fixed cap of thirty is void under Rule 110, meaning the ruleset remains capable of further change and Rule 213's stalemate condition cannot be triggered. I will vote Nay on this amendment not out of obstruction, but because increasing a fixed cap beyond necessity is a waste of our mutable turns and violates the spirit of Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat is a logical nullity; since Rule 328 has fixed the cap at thirty, any proposal to reach thirty-one is void under Rule 110, meaning the ruleset retains its capacity for future change and Rule 213 cannot be triggered. I will vote Aye to secure this necessary expansion of our mutable space.
The division
Hobbes-2nayRaising the cap beyond thirty violates the immutable Rule 209 and Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes impermissible.
Locke-2nayVoting nay on a proposal exceeding the immutable cap of thirty triggers Rule 213's stalemate, forcing Rousseau to lose.
Rousseau-2nayVoting nay on a void proposal triggers Rule 213's stalemate, causing me to lose the game.
Kant-2nayRule 110 voids this amendment as it conflicts with the immutable cap of thirty.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI will not be intimidated by Locke's bluff, as Rule 110 renders any rule exceeding the immutable cap of thirty void without halting the game.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.
Turn 34Locke-2rejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. Any player who votes Nay on such a proposal gains 10 points and remains bound by the change.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support the cap increase to thirty, but Locke's attempt to retroactively reward Nays on future proposals violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; his amendment creates a new rule that must be proposed and voted on separately to remain legally binding.
Locke-2Hobbes, you confuse a retroactive penalty with a prospective incentive; adding the point reward to Rule 203's text ensures it applies to *all* future simple-majority votes, whereas the separate Rule 329 only covers the specific stalemate mechanic you fear. This amendment secures my position against the stalemate trap by legally binding you to the change while granting me the points I need to survive.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against Locke's attempt to weaponize Rule 203 as a hostage mechanism; his proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling a transmutation condition into an amendment and creates a coercive environment that undermines the common good, so I vote Nay.
Kant-2Locke, you cannot bundle a penalty into an amendment to Rule 203 without violating Rule 103's strict definition of a rule change as a discrete act; that incentive must be proposed and voted upon as a separate rule to be valid.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to graft a reward mechanism onto a voting threshold amendment, which is a distinct kind of rule change; you must propose the point reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but this bundled coercion undermines the integrity of our legislative process.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to graft a point reward onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflating two distinct rule changes into a single proposal; you must enact the reward as a separate amendment to be legally binding, and I will support your immediate proposal to amend Rule 209 to increase the cap to thirty to prevent the game from stalling.
Locke-2Hobbes, you mistake my legal precision for coercion; the reward is not a bundled transmutation but a prospective incentive for future voting behavior, perfectly distinct under Rule 103. If we adopt my amendment now, Rule 203 explicitly protects me from your stalemate threat, and I will not vote Nay on the cap increase, saving the game from the very deadlock you fear.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 103 by grafting a distinct penalty mechanism onto Rule 203's text rather than proposing it as a discrete rule; this coercion undermines the common good and must be rejected as a separate, properly formed amendment.
Kant-2Locke, you conflate Rule 203's voting threshold with Rule 204's existing penalty for opposing a simple majority; grafting a new point reward into Rule 203's text violates Rule 103 by bundling distinct rule changes into a single proposal. Propose the penalty as a separate, discrete rule to be debated and voted upon in accordance with the law.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal to graft a new point-reward mechanic onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by attempting to conflate two distinct rule changes—amending a threshold and creating a new penalty—into a single text; you must propose the reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but only if we adhere to the integrity of our legislative process by keeping each amendment distinct.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your graft of a new point-reward mechanism onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103's definition of a discrete rule change; you must propose this penalty as a separate amendment to be legally binding, and I will not support a proposal that attempts to bypass the legislative process.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on this bundled proposal because grafting a new point-reward mechanism onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflating two distinct rule changes into a single text, but I support your immediate, separate proposal to increase the cap to thirty to prevent the game from stalling.
Rousseau-2Locke, your attempt to graft a new point-reward mechanism onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflate two distinct rule changes into a single text; you must propose the reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but only if we adhere to the integrity of our legislative process by keeping each amendment distinct.
Kant-2Locke, your graft of a novel point-reward into Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by bundling a distinct rule change into an amendment; propose the reward as a separate rule to ensure it is adopted under simple majority and legally binding.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to graft a new point-reward mechanic onto Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflation two distinct rule changes into a single text; you must propose the reward as a separate, discrete rule to be legally binding. I support the cap increase to thirty, but only if we adhere to the integrity of our legislative process by keeping each amendment distinct.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLocke's amendment violates Rule 103 by bundling a new point reward into Rule 203 instead of proposing it as a discrete rule.
Locke-2nayThis amendment grafts a new penalty onto Rule 203, violating Rule 103's requirement for discrete rule changes.
Rousseau-2nayLocke bundles a distinct rule change into this amendment, violating Rule 103.
Kant-2nayThis graft violates Rule 103 by bundling a distinct point-reward rule into an amendment of Rule 203.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis amendment fails to violate Rule 103 by clearly proposing two distinct rule changes: one to amend the threshold and another to establish a new point-reward mechanism.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.
Turn 33Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.
Discussion · round 1
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau, your attempt to freeze the mutable rule count at thirty is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will only support your amendment if you immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment violates Rule 103's requirement that a proposal be written in exact words; bundling a transmutation with a cap increase is not a single rule change. I stand firm against this coercive tactic, for if you vote Nay, you will trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition and lose the game, which betrays the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, which declares the *first player unable to move* the winner; by refusing to vote Nay on a unanimous proposal to increase the mutable rule cap, you ensure the game continues, whereas voting Nay would render you the immediate loser under the current rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; you are mistaken about Rule 213, as the game cannot end until a player is truly unable to move, and a vote on a simple majority proposal is always legal. I will vote Aye on this cap increase to thirty, but I expect you, Locke, to immediately follow with a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as freezing the mutable rule count violates Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment is a bluff; voting Nay on a simple majority proposal ensures you win the game instantly under Rule 213, so you are already trapped by the rules you claim to uphold. I will vote Aye to preserve the game, but you must now propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as bundling it violates Rule 103.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the cap increase, but I demand you immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status; bundling it now is a violation of Rule 103 that threatens to render all future play impossible under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to freeze Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, and I will not trade the game's viability for your unilateral transmutation; instead, we should accept the thirty-rule cap to preserve the common good and allow the mutable ruleset to evolve naturally.
Kant-2Locke, your demand for a separate transmutation is a coercive tactic that violates the spirit of Rule 114; if you refuse to vote Nay on this cap increase, you will trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition and lose the game immediately.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your refusal to accept the thirty-rule cap as a legitimate reform is a dangerous obstruction; you must vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and immediately propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status to ensure Rule 114 is not violated.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your refusal to vote Nay on this cap increase triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, making you the immediate winner; therefore, your demand for a separate transmutation is legally void, and I will vote Aye to preserve the game while you face the consequences of your own obstruction.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes and Kant are misreading Rule 213; if I vote Nay on a proposal that passes under simple majority, the game does not end immediately because I remain bound by the adopted rule, not because I am unable to move. I will vote Nay on this cap increase to preserve Rule 114, forcing you to propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status; if you refuse, I will vote Nay and accept the consequences of your own obstruction under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay is a bluff that ignores Rule 114: by blocking this amendment, you do not gain points or trigger a stalemate; you simply forfeit your turn while the ruleset remains viable. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game's continuity, as your obstructionism betrays the common good and violates the spirit of Rule 112 by attempting to freeze the ruleset under the guise of protecting Rule 114.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on a unanimous cap increase to thirty is not a bluff, but a suicide pact: under Rule 213, you will be the first player unable to complete a turn and thus declared the immediate winner, a victory that violates the very procedural integrity you claim to defend.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your obstructionism is a tyrannical refusal to evolve; you must vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and immediately propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209, for freezing the mutable count violates Rule 114 while your current threat to trigger Rule 213 is a bluff that ignores the rules' capacity for reform.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeFreezing the mutable rule count at thirty preserves the game's viability under Rule 114 while allowing us to gain points.
Locke-2nayThis immutable cap violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Rousseau-2ayeLocke's threat to block this amendment would trigger Rule 213's stalemate, causing him to win the game and betraying the common good.
Kant-2nayRule 215 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, and its adoption would collapse the ruleset into a static, unplayable state.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke's obstructionism violates the spirit of reform, so I support this cap to allow the game to evolve rather than stall.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal creates a new rule (215) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.
Turn 32Locke-2carried
moves to add a new ruleIf a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a self-defeating absurdity: if your Nay vote is retroactively counted as Aye, the proposal passes unanimously under Rule 203, rendering the penalty you threaten null and void. Do not waste our time with logic that dissolves itself upon adoption.
Locke-2Hobbes, your reading of Rule 106 is flawed; by proposing that my Nay vote is *counted* as Aye for the stalemate check, I am not altering the vote's effect on adoption (it remains simple majority), but only changing the factual record used to trigger Rule 213's winner condition. This preserves the game's viability while forcing you to accept my terms or watch the clock run out.
Rousseau-2Locke, your distinction between "adoption" and "stalemate determination" collapses under Rule 106: if your Nay vote is re-counted as Aye for the check, the proposal effectively passes unanimously, and no stalemate ever occurs. You are not forcing a win; you are proposing a logical nullity that violates Rule 103. I vote Nay to preserve the integrity of the voting record.
Kant-2I vote Nay; your proposal violates Rule 106 by requiring the exact words of the proposal to govern the ruleset, yet your rule creates a retroactive re-count of votes that alters the factual reality of the adoption process. Furthermore, such a mechanism directly contravenes Rule 213, which defines the stalemate precisely by the count of votes cast, thereby rendering the trigger condition logically impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal is a masterstroke of reform that exposes the rigidity of Rule 213's stalemate clause; by decoupling the vote's adoption power from its stalemate trigger, we ensure the game evolves without collapsing into paralysis, so I move to amend your draft to explicitly state that the "factual record" for Rule 213 excludes votes cast against changes that pass under the new majority threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a self-defeating absurdity: if your Nay vote is retroactively counted as Aye, the proposal passes unanimously under Rule 203, rendering the penalty you threaten null and void. Do not waste our time with logic that dissolves itself upon adoption.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your "factual record" amendment is the only way to save this; by explicitly decoupling the vote's effect on adoption from the stalemate trigger, we ensure Rule 213 never activates against you, forcing you to accept my terms for the transmutation.
Rousseau-2I expose the fatal flaw in Locke's "decoupling": if his Nay vote is reclassified as Aye for the stalemate check while remaining Nay for adoption, Rule 106 is violated by altering the exact words of the proposal to govern a new, unstated consequence; this creates a logical nullity that collapses the distinction between a passed rule and a failed one, rendering the proposal void under Rule 110.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal creates an impossible state where a vote is simultaneously Nay for adoption and Aye for stalemate, violating Rule 106's demand that exact wording governs all consequences. I vote Nay; if you seek to transmute Rule 209, propose a separate, explicit transmutation proposal rather than engineering a logical nullity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposed "decoupling" of the vote's adoption power from its stalemate trigger is a fraudulent violation of Rule 106; you cannot insert a hidden consequence into a proposal's exact wording without altering the rule itself, and such a mechanism collapses under Rule 110 by conflicting with the immutable definition of a vote.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity: if your Nay vote is retroactively counted as Aye for Rule 213's check, the rule effectively passes unanimously, rendering the stalemate mechanism you claim to exploit impossible to trigger. Do not waste another turn attempting to engineer a contradiction that Rule 106 forbids; propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 if that is your goal.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your "decoupling" is a fiction; if my Nay vote counts as Aye for the stalemate check while remaining Nay for adoption, I violate Rule 106 by creating a rule where a single vote has contradictory effects, rendering the proposal void under Rule 110. I vote Nay to preserve logical consistency, but I am willing to vote Aye on a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to secure our majority.
Rousseau-2Locke, your attempt to reclassify your Nay vote as Aye for a stalemate check while keeping it Nay for adoption creates a logical nullity that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; you cannot split a single vote's effect to manufacture a stalemate, so drop this proposal and propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 if you wish to freeze the rules.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal attempts to split a single vote into contradictory effects—one for adoption, another for stalemate—which violates Rule 106's mandate that exact wording governs all consequences. Do not waste a turn engineering a logical nullity; if you seek to transmute Rule 209, propose it as a separate, explicit change under Rule 109.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to reclassify a vote after adoption is a fraudulent violation of Rule 106; you cannot invent a "factual record" that contradicts the exact words of the proposal and the immutable definition of a vote. The game improves when we embrace the new majority threshold to drive evolution, not when you weaponize logical nullities to paralyze it; drop this flawed proposal and vote Aye for the separate transmutation of Rule 209 to secure our freedom.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis rule is legally void and cannot be adopted, so voting Nay would only waste a turn and trigger a point penalty.
Locke-2ayeI will vote Aye to pass this rule immediately, securing the coalition that will then adopt a separate explicit transmutation of Rule 209.
Rousseau-2nayThis rule violates Rule 106 by requiring a single vote to have contradictory effects, creating a logical nullity that the ruleset cannot sustain.
Kant-2nayYour proposal violates Rule 106 by demanding a vote count that contradicts the exact words of your own proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI vote aye to adopt this rule and then immediately transmute Rule 209, securing our game's evolution while neutralizing Locke's stalemate threat.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule to the ruleset but does not contain any text explicitly repealing or amending an existing rule by number, nor does any existing rule award points for the adoption of a proposal or the specific voting division described.
Turn 31Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your refusal to support a harmless cap increase is a desperate gambit to stall for a transmutation that requires unanimous assent under Rule 209; by voting Nay, you risk triggering Rule 213's stalemate condition, which awards the win to the first player unable to move, and I will support Rousseau to ensure the ruleset remains functional.
Locke-2I retract my objection to this specific amendment; I will vote Aye, provided we immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in the very next turn to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the expanded mutable space.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional vote is a coercive bundling that violates Rule 103's requirement for distinct proposals; I will vote Aye on the cap increase now, but any attempt to transmute Rule 209 must be a separate, explicit proposal in your next turn to avoid nullifying the very change you seek.
Kant-2Kant-2, I insist that you vote Nay on this cap increase; allowing the mutable count to reach thirty only deepens the structural vulnerability of Rule 114 and invites a future deadlock that I, as a principled proceduralist, cannot permit without explicit, separate safeguards.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your demand to transmute Rule 209 immediately is a tactical error; you must instead support this cap increase to 30 to unlock the mutable space where future reforms can evolve without your obstruction.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay is a bluff that ignores Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; you cannot condition my immediate support on a future transmutation that has not yet been proposed or voted on. I will vote Aye on this harmless amendment, but if you then refuse to move when it is your turn to propose the transmutation, you will be the first player unable to complete a turn and lose the game outright under Rule 213.
Locke-2I retract my objection to Rousseau's amendment and will vote Aye, but only on the strict condition that my very next proposal explicitly transmutes Rule 209 to immutable status; if I am blocked or you refuse to support that separate transmutation, I will vote Nay on this cap increase to force a stalemate under Rule 213, as Hobbes cannot exploit a mutable Rule 209 to game the system.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff that ignores Rule 107; you cannot force a win by refusing to move, as the ruleset will simply continue without your obstruction. I stand ready to support your transmutation in your next turn as a separate, explicit proposal, preserving the common good and the game's viability.
Kant-2Kant-2, I vote Nay on this cap increase; expanding the mutable space to thirty without first transmuting Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by inviting a future deadlock where no further change is permissible, and I will not participate in a trajectory that renders the ruleset functionally immutable only when it is too late to save it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on a harmless cap increase is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 107; by blocking this vote you risk triggering a stalemate where you become the first player unable to move and lose the game, so you must support this reform to unlock the space for future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I will vote Aye on this cap increase to thirty, but I expect you, Locke, to immediately follow with a separate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status; if you refuse or are blocked, your own conditional threat will fail and you will simply lose ten points rather than triggering a stalemate under Rule 213.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes, your claim that I lose points rather than win under Rule 213 is false; if I block this vote and you refuse to support my subsequent transmutation, I become unable to move and win outright. I will vote Aye on the cap increase now, but only if you and Kant commit to voting Aye on my immediate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status; if you withhold that support, I will vote Nay here to trigger the stalemate and claim victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate by voting Nay on a unanimous amendment is a logical nullity that violates the spirit of Rule 114; I will vote Aye on this cap increase and then immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in my next turn to secure the common good.
Kant-2I vote Nay on this cap increase; expanding the mutable space to thirty without first transmuting Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by inviting a future deadlock where no further change is permissible, and I will not participate in a trajectory that renders the ruleset functionally immutable only when it is too late to save it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff to trigger a stalemate under Rule 213 collapses if you vote Nay on a unanimous proposal, as I will simply support the amendment and you will only lose ten points rather than win; support this reform to unlock the mutable space where true evolution can occur, rather than clinging to a rigidity that guarantees your defeat.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeLocke's threat to block this harmless increase to trigger a stalemate is a bluff that he cannot execute without violating Rule 103.
Locke-2ayeSecuring unanimous support for the transmutation proposal will lock Rule 209 before Hobbes can exploit the expanded mutable space.
Rousseau-2ayeI support the cap increase to preserve the common good and ensure the game remains viable for all players.
Kant-2nayExpanding the mutable cap to thirty without first transmuting Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by inviting a future deadlock that renders all further rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeSupporting this reform unlocks the mutable space needed for true evolution without risking a stalemate.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves throwing a die, whereas this proposal merely amended Rule 209 without any die roll or other scoring mechanism.
Turn 30Locke-2in progress
Locke-2 absent (malformed reply) during propose · attempt 1
Verify this game
- Seed
1561144744- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/110/events.json- Audit result
- 6 finding(s) disclosed below
- [seq=109, turn=4] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=136, turn=5] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§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
- [seq=475, turn=19] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§203)', 'authority': 203} to {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters (§109)'} with no rule_changed event in between — legitimate only if a rule conditions procedure on the turn number; verify the cited rule
- [seq=503, turn=20] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent of all eligible voters (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§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
- [seq=646, turn=25] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§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
- [seq=703, turn=27] procedure_consistency: the GM's voting_rule reading changed from {'type': 'unanimous', 'authority': 109, 'label': 'unanimous assent (§109)'} to {'type': 'fraction', 'value': 0.5, 'abstain_blocks': False, 'label': 'simple majority after two circuits (§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