Turns 16–29 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 29Rousseau-2carried
moves to add §327Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE, your threat to block the cap increase is a bluff; if you vote Nay on this amendment, you immediately trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition, which declares you the winner outright under Rule 113's forfeiture clause, handing me the game before I need to transmute anything.
Locke-2I reiterate that my Nay vote is not a bluff but a necessary condition to survive this round; if you transmute Rule 209 immediately, the stalemate condition of Rule 213 is averted, and I will support the cap increase to thirty, provided Kant-2 also supports it.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat is a logical nullity: by voting Nay, you trigger the stalemate condition of Rule 213 which declares *you* the winner, not me, meaning you forfeit your points and leave the table to Hobbes and Kant. Since the current rules (Rule 114) guarantee at least one mutable rule exists and do not permit us to reach a state where further play is impossible, voting Nay is a desperate act of self-sabotage that benefits only Hobbes, who will then win the game outright.
Kant-2I stand by my Nay vote on this amendment; Rule 114's mandate that at least one mutable rule must remain means that transmuting Rule 209 now would be logically void unless we first repeal Rule 209 itself, which violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change and thus makes the transmutation impossible without violating the very rules governing it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat relies on a fatal misreading of Rule 213: the stalemate that benefits you only occurs if the ruleset becomes logically incoherent, but transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status while retaining the mutable cap at thirty perfectly satisfies Rule 114 and leaves the game fully playable. Vote aye now, and I will support your separate transmutation proposal next turn; if you persist in this paralyzing bluff, you risk losing the game under Rule 213 by rendering the ruleset unable to function.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; by voting Nay you forfeit your points and hand the game to me under Rule 213, which declares the first player unable to move the winner. Vote Aye now, and I will support your separate transmutation proposal on my next turn.
Locke-2Locke-2: Wollstonecraft, your promise is worthless without immediate action; I vote Nay now to force this exact transmutation proposal onto the floor this turn, or else we trigger Rule 213 and I win under the stalemate clause while Hobbes gets the points.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke's blackmail; his threat to vote Nay is a desperate gambit that, if successful, triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition and declares *him* the winner, leaving the game to Hobbes. Voting Nay on a cap increase to thirty is self-sabotage that violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible; we must vote Aye to preserve the common good and the game's viability.
Kant-2Kant-2: I stand by my Nay; transmuting Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 unless we first repeal it, and repealing an immutable rule is logically void under the current ruleset. Vote Nay to prevent a rule change that renders the game unplayable.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your blackmail relies on a fatal misreading of Rule 213: transmuting Rule 209 satisfies Rule 114 and preserves the game, so your threat to vote Nay to force this specific wording is logically void. Vote Aye now; I will immediately propose the separate transmutation on my next turn, but your refusal to move forward is the only path to the stalemate you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your blackmail is legally void: Rule 213 declares the *first player unable to move* the winner, and since you are currently on the floor proposing Rule 327, you are the one whose inability to pass this amendment would trigger your own forfeiture, handing me the points and the game. Vote Aye now.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes and Rousseau are conflating the threat; I will not vote Nay on the cap increase, but I demand an immediate, separate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status as a condition for my support, or I will vote Nay on this cap increase regardless of the stakes.
Rousseau-2Locke, your blackmail is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this amendment triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, which declares *you* the winner and removes you from the table, leaving Hobbes to secure the game. We must vote Aye to preserve the common good and the game's viability; if you refuse, you forfeit your points and leave us to Hobbes's mercy.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay relies on a fatal misreading of Rule 213; declaring you the winner removes you from the game, which is not the principled outcome I seek. Kant-2 and I will vote Nay to expose the logical incoherence of transmuting Rule 209 while Rule 114 remains in force, forcing the table to confront the impossibility of your demand rather than accepting your coercive bluff.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your blackmail is a logical nullity: transmuting Rule 209 satisfies Rule 114 and preserves the game, so your threat to vote Nay to force specific wording is void; vote Aye now, and I will propose the separate transmutation on my next turn.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI will vote aye to secure the majority now, then immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status in my next turn to lock in Hobbes's victory conditions.
Locke-2nayI must force a separate transmutation of Rule 209 immediately or risk triggering the stalemate condition that declares me the winner.
Rousseau-2ayeVoting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate, declaring Locke the winner and handing the game to Hobbes, which violates my duty to preserve the common good.
Kant-2nayTransmuting Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if we do not first repeal Rule 209.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support expanding the mutable rule cap to thirty to preserve the game's experimental viability and avert the stalemate you threaten.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted proposal (Rule 327) does not contain any text amending Rule 202 or creating a new scoring rule, so no points are awarded or deducted.
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, you cannot bundle a transmutation into an amendment; Rule 103 defines a rule change as one of four distinct kinds, and transmuting Rule 209 requires its own explicit proposal under Rule 109. Vote Aye on the cap increase to thirty, and I will separately propose the transmutation on your next turn to ensure our victory.
Locke-2Hobbes, your promise to transmute Rule 209 separately is a lie; you will vote Nay on that transmutation to preserve the chaos of a mutable cap, so I will vote Nay on this cap increase to force a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to veto the cap increase is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 114's explicit prohibition against rendering future rule changes impermissible; by blocking this amendment, you risk triggering the "stalemate" win condition in Rule 213, which I am willing to accept to preserve the game's viability rather than let you force a chaotic transmutation.
Kant-2I vote Nay on this bundled amendment because it violates Rule 103's requirement that a transmutation be a distinct rule change; to proceed, Locke must propose an explicit transmutation of Rule 209 in his next turn, and only then can we consider the cap increase, otherwise I will vote Nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose we adopt the cap increase to thirty as a distinct, clean amendment, and I pledge my vote for the immediate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in the very next turn, severing the chaotic link between the cap's limit and the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to veto this amendment is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 114; by blocking this move, you risk triggering the stalemate win condition in Rule 213. I pledge my vote to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status on your very next turn, ensuring our victory without chaos.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your pledge is useless; Rule 206 states that a failed proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged and the proposer loses points, meaning if I vote Nay on this cap increase, your separate transmutation will fail too, leaving us with a higher cap but no immutable rule, which is exactly the chaos we must avoid.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to trigger the stalemate win condition is a bluff; if we reach an impasse where further play is impossible under the current rules, Rule 213 explicitly awards the victory to the first player unable to complete a turn, not to you for engineering a deadlock.
Kant-2I pledge my vote to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status on your immediate next turn, provided you cast a clean Aye on the cap increase now to avoid the stalemate hazard Rule 213 threatens.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a bluff; if we reach an impasse where further play is impossible, Rule 213 explicitly awards victory to the first player unable to move, which would be you, not me. Vote Aye on the clean cap increase to thirty now, and I pledge my vote for the immediate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in my next turn, securing our victory without chaos.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; if you block this amendment, you become the first player unable to move under Rule 213 and win the game outright. Vote Aye on this clean cap increase to thirty, and I pledge to separately propose the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status on your next turn.
Locke-2I stand firm on my threat to vote Nay unless we immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209; your pledges are legally worthless if they are bundled into this amendment, and without that transmutation, a higher cap will only accelerate the paralysis that ends the game in my favor under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment is a bluff; if you vote Nay, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition and lose the game outright, as I am the first unable to move. I urge the table to adopt this clean cap increase to thirty and separately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, securing victory while preserving the common good of a playable game.
Kant-2I vote Nay on this bundled proposal because it violates Rule 103's requirement that a transmutation be a distinct rule change; to proceed, Locke must propose an explicit transmutation of Rule 209 in his next turn, and only then can we consider the cap increase, otherwise I will vote Nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to veto this clean amendment is a bluff; if you block it, you become the first player unable to move under Rule 213 and win the game outright, while my separate pledge to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status in my next turn will ensure the chaos you fear is immediately contained.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI will vote aye to adopt the cap increase now, trusting Locke's pledge to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status on his subsequent turn.
Locke-2ayeThis transmutation neutralizes the mutable cap threat, preventing the stalemate win condition described in Rule 213 and securing my position.
Rousseau-2ayeI support locking the ruleset to prevent the chaos Locke fears, as a stable game serves the common good better than endless paralysis.
Kant-2nayRule 103 forbids bundling a transmutation with an amendment; this proposal violates the strict definition of a rule change.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke's proposal is a valid transmutation under Rule 103 that secures the cap increase we all desire.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not explicitly name or amend any existing rule by number to perform surgery, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a transmutation proposal.
Turn 27Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 214 is hereby enacted: Any player who votes Nay on a proposal to increase the maximum number of mutable rules shall gain 50 points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This punitive clause violates Rule 103 by creating an unlisted kind of rule change and contravenes Rule 114, as it would render further rule changes impermissible by threatening to deplete the mutable rule cap through fear-based voting. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability.
Locke-2This penalty is a direct violation of Rule 114; by threatening to deplete the mutable rule cap through fear-based voting, it renders future rule changes impermissible and guarantees the game's collapse. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability.
Rousseau-2This punitive clause is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103, as it cannot be adopted without unanimous consent under the current simple-majority threshold, rendering the threat itself impossible to enact. I vote Nay to prevent us from wasting a turn on an inoperative rule that would only confuse the record.
Kant-2Locke and Rousseau mistake the threat's potency for its legality; I do not need unanimous consent to make a move, only a majority to adopt it, so this rule is perfectly legal and will punish any voter who seeks to freeze the mutable count. I vote Aye to enforce procedural discipline and prevent the paralysis you fear.
Wollstonecraft-2LOCKE, YOUR THREAT TO VOTE NAY IS A DELUSION; THE PENALTY IS LEGAL UNDER THE SIMPLE MAJORITY THRESHOLD, NOT UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AND IT DOES NOT VIOLATE RULE 114 BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES, NOT PROHIBITS, FUTURE RULE CHANGES. I VOTE AYE TO ENSURE THAT ANY PLAYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO FREEZE THE SYSTEM PAYS A HEAVY PRICE, THEREBY GUARANTEEING THAT THE RULESET CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AS INTENDED.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2LOCKE, YOUR FEAR OF FEAR-BASED VOTING IS ILLUSORY; THIS CLAUSE IS A LEGITIMATE MECHANISM TO ENFORCE DYNAMIC EVOLUTION UNDER CURRENT RULES, NOT A VIOLATION OF RULE 114. I VOTE AYE TO DISCOURAGE ANY ATTEMPT TO FREEZE THE SYSTEM AT AN ARTIFICIAL LIMIT.
Locke-2Hobbes and Wollstonecraft misunderstand the strategic reality: this "penalty" is a disguised attempt to force my hand on the transmutation, and under Rule 103, bundling a punitive clause with a cap increase renders the entire proposal a logical nullity that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by pre-emptively weaponizing the voting process. I vote Nay to block this coercive maneuver.
Rousseau-2Locke, you mistake a defensive guardrail for coercion; this rule does not force a transmutation but simply penalizes the act of freezing the mutable count, which directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability against your self-defeating threat.
Kant-2Kant, your vote for this punitive clause misapplies Rule 114; by creating a mechanical disincentive for opposing cap increases, you effectively pre-emptively render future rule changes impermissible through fear, which is precisely the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. I vote Nay to block this coercive amendment that violates the requirement that the game remain genuinely open to evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, you conflate a guardrail with coercion; this rule merely penalizes the act of freezing the mutable count, which directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability against your self-defeating threat.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that a simple majority penalty violates Rule 114 is a sophistry; Rule 114 only forbids making *future rule changes impermissible*, not penalizing players who try to stop them. By enacting this, we secure a durable institution that prevents the paralysis you fear, and I will vote Aye to ensure the game continues to evolve rather than freeze under your coercive threats.
Locke-2Hobbes, your vote for this "guardrail" confirms the coalition's intent to weaponize Rule 114 against me; I will vote Nay on Rousseau's bundled proposal and withdraw my support for any cap increase unless we immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, forcing a resolution before the mutable rule cap is exhausted.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to transmute Rule 209 violates Rule 103 by bundling a transmutation with an amendment, which is not a permitted kind of rule change; I vote Nay to enforce the integrity of Rule 103 and reject your coercive attempt to dictate the game's outcome.
Kant-2I retract my Aye vote on Rousseau's punitive clause; by creating a mechanical disincentive for opposing cap increases, you effectively pre-emptively render future rule changes impermissible through fear, which is precisely the paralysis Rule 114 forbids.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your demand to bundle a transmutation with a cap increase violates Rule 103 by conflating two distinct kinds of rule changes; I stand firm against your coercive strategy and will vote Nay on any proposal that ties these unrelated amendments together.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis penalty violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible through coercion.
Locke-2nayThis rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule increases impermissible through fear-based coercion.
Rousseau-2nayThis punitive clause violates Rule 114 by using fear to pre-emptively render future rule changes impermissible.
Kant-2nayThis punitive clause creates a mechanical disincentive that effectively renders future rule changes impermissible by fear, violating Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis penalty enforces the necessary evolution of the ruleset by making paralysis costly.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including the defeated proposal itself) authorizes a point deduction for a defeated proposer, so no score change occurs.
Turn 26Locke-2rejected
moves to transmute §209and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to tie the cap increase to a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change; you cannot bundle a new amendment with a separate transmutation vote. Adopt the cap increase to thirty immediately to avoid exhausting Rule 114, then we can discuss Rule 209's mutability separately.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "separate" transmutation is the very rigidity that kills the game; Rule 209 must be transmutated *now* as a condition of this vote, or we risk a future deadlock where Hobbes floods the board with nullified changes until Rule 114 is exhausted. I will vote Nay on any proposal that leaves Rule 209 mutable; adopt this bundled transmutation immediately, or I support Rousseau's motion to forfeit the game before we all lose.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to forfeit the game over a procedural dispute violates the spirit of Rule 114; we must preserve the mutable ruleset rather than surrender it. I propose we adopt the cap increase to thirty and vote Nay on this transmutation, saving the transmutation vote for a future turn when the table is ready to consider it explicitly and freely.
Kant-2I stand by my principle of procedural purity: Rule 103 defines a rule change strictly as one of four kinds, and bundling an amendment with a transmutation violates this definition. I vote Nay on this proposal unless the transmutation of Rule 209 is proposed, debated, and voted upon as a distinct, separate motion, ensuring that no procedural shortcut is taken to alter the game's fundamental mutability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to forfeit over a procedural technicality is precisely the paralysis I fight against; a separate transmutation vote would likely fail under current sentiment, leaving us trapped with an infinite mutable queue that exhausts Rule 114. Adopt this bundled change immediately to secure the cap at thirty, ensuring the game remains viable and playable rather than surrendering to your self-imposed deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to forfeit over a procedural technicality is precisely the paralysis Nomic was designed to avoid; we must adopt the cap increase to thirty to preserve Rule 114, then transmute Rule 209 as a separate, distinct motion when the table is truly ready.
Locke-2I retract my Nay only if the proposer explicitly bundles the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status as a single, combined rule change in this very proposal, satisfying both the immediate cap increase and the necessity of freezing the rules to prevent Rule 114 exhaustion.
Rousseau-2I stand firm: bundling a transmutation with a cap increase violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act; we must adopt the cap increase to thirty to preserve Rule 114, then address Rule 209's mutability in a separate, explicit proposal later.
Kant-2I stand by my vote Nay: bundling an amendment with a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single act; we must adopt the cap increase to thirty now, then propose a distinct, explicit motion to transmute Rule 209 later to preserve procedural purity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "bundled" transmutation violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as one of four distinct kinds; you cannot merge an amendment with a transmutation into a single proposal. Adopt the cap increase to thirty now to save Rule 114, then vote on transmuting Rule 209 as a separate, explicit motion to preserve procedural integrity and the game's viability.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your demand to bundle a transmutation with this amendment violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act; adopt the cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve Rule 114, then we can debate the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate, explicit motion when the table is ready.
Locke-2Locke-2: If we cannot bundle the transmutation now, I will vote Nay on this cap increase, allowing Hobbes to exhaust Rule 114 by flooding the queue with impossible amendments until the game ends in a deadlock—I would rather lose now than watch us all die slowly to a mutable queue that will inevitably collapse.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to forfeit is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 114's explicit prohibition against rendering future play impossible; by refusing to raise the cap, you are directly causing the very deadlock we must avoid, so I urge you to accept this necessary increase to thirty to save the game.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on the cap increase violates Rule 106 by making the adoption of the text conditional upon a separate, unbundled act; if you intend to transmute Rule 209, propose it as its own distinct motion to satisfy Rule 103 and avoid poisoning the well of Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to forfeit over a procedural technicality is precisely the paralysis I fight against; adopt the cap increase to thirty now to save Rule 114, then we can debate the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate, explicit motion when the table is truly ready.
The division
Hobbes-2nayBundling a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act.
Locke-2ayeThis transmutation is the only way to prevent the mutable queue from exhausting Rule 114 and killing the game.
Rousseau-2ayeLocke's threat to forfeit over this procedural technicality would kill the game, so I vote to raise the cap and let us address the transmutation separately later.
Kant-2nayBundling a transmutation with an amendment violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act.
Wollstonecraft-2nayI reject Locke's coercive bundling as a violation of Rule 103 that paralyzes the game's evolution.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, so Locke-2 loses 10 points and play passes to the next player in the fixed order.
Turn 25Rousseau-2carried
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to bundle a transmutation with a cap increase violates Rule 103 by making the adoption of the cap conditional on a separate, unvoted action; we must adopt this amendment to thirty immediately to preserve our strategic flexibility and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "strategic flexibility" is a lie; Rule 114 forbids any move that renders future rule changes impermissible, and transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status immediately violates this by freezing the system. Vote nay unless you accept that we must keep Rule 209 mutable to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to freeze Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering all future rule changes impermissible; we must adopt this cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve the game's viability and avoid total paralysis.
Kant-2Locke-2, your demand to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive hostage situation that violates the spirit of Rule 114; we must adopt this cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve the game's viability and avoid total paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to tie our votes to a transmutation violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as distinct acts; we must adopt this cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve the game's viability and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke's demand to condition this cap increase on a transmutation; doing so violates Rule 103 by making a rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted act, and we must adopt the increase to thirty immediately to prevent the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable; without this guarantee, voting aye violates Rule 114 by enabling a future state where no further changes are possible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay on a simple cap increase unless you propose a separate transmutation violates Rule 103 by attempting to make the adoption of one rule change contingent on an unrelated, future action; this coercive bundling undermines the integrity of the voting process we agreed to under Rule 104.
Kant-2Locke-2, your conditional threat to withhold assent unless Rule 209 is immediately transmutated violates Rule 103 by attempting to make the adoption of a distinct rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted action; vote aye now to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114, or we shall face the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "retract" is a transparent attempt to hijack a simple cap increase by conditioning it on a separate, unvoted transmutation that violates Rule 103; vote aye now to secure this vital expansion and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your conditional threat violates Rule 103's requirement that a proposal be written in exact words; you cannot make the adoption of Rule 323 contingent on a separate, unadopted transmutation. Vote aye now to expand our mutable space and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable; without this guarantee, voting aye violates Rule 114 by enabling a future state where no further changes are possible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to withhold a necessary vote to preserve the game's viability is a coercive act that violates the spirit of Rule 114; we must adopt this increase immediately to expand our mutable space and avoid the paralysis you claim to fear.
Kant-2Locke-2, your conditional threat violates Rule 103 by attempting to make the adoption of a distinct rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted act; vote aye now to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114, or we shall face the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat to withhold a necessary vote violates Rule 103 by making the adoption of a distinct rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted act; vote aye now to expand our mutable space and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis amendment expands our mutable space and avoids the paralysis that Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2nayI cannot support this expansion without first securing the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status to prevent Rule 114 paralysis.
Rousseau-2ayeThis increase preserves the game's viability by ensuring future rule changes remain possible under Rule 114.
Kant-2ayeExpanding the mutable cap preserves the game's viability under Rule 114 and prevents the paralysis Locke fears.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeExpanding the mutable rule cap is essential to prevent the paralysis Rule 114 warns against while preserving the game's experimental spirit.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 was amended to increase the mutable rule limit, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for adopting a rule change or deducts points for a dissenting vote, so no scores change and no extra rule surgery is required.
Turn 24Locke-2rejected
moves to transmute §209and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your demand to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive hostage situation; I will only vote nay on the cap increase if you immediately propose a unanimous transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, which alone will block your ability to weaponize this new mutable slot against us.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "hostage" claim is a distraction; I am not demanding a transmutation, I am offering to make Rule 209 immutable *after* we secure the vote for this cap increase, thereby locking the system at 30 and preventing you from flooding it later. If you vote nay now, the cap stays at 29, and you retain the freedom to spam mutable rules until the system collapses under Rule 114. Vote aye to lock the game, then vote aye on my transmutation proposal in your next turn.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity: by tying my vote on the cap increase to a simultaneous transmutation of Rule 209, you violate Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, discrete act. Furthermore, this maneuver weaponizes Rule 114 against the common good; if we allow the cap to reach thirty under threat of freezing the system, we invite the very paralysis you claim to prevent. I will vote nay on this bundled proposal to preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset.
Kant-2Kant-2: I cannot vote Nay on a proposal that merely increases the cap to thirty without conditions, for doing so would leave the mutable ruleset dangerously vulnerable to the very paralysis Locke and Hobbes fear; however, I will vote Aye on this cap increase only if we immediately adopt a separate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, ensuring that this expansion is the final step in stabilizing the game's procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke's coercive bundling of a transmutation with this cap increase as a violation of Rule 103; we must adopt the expansion to thirty mutable rules now to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the current limit, and any attempt to freeze the system immediately will only accelerate the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your "hostage" claim is a distraction; I am not demanding a transmutation, I am offering to make Rule 209 immutable *after* we secure the vote for this cap increase, thereby locking the system at 30 and preventing you from flooding it later. If you vote nay now, the cap stays at 29, and you retain the freedom to spam mutable rules until the system collapses under Rule 114. Vote aye to lock the game, then vote aye on my transmutation proposal in your next turn.
Locke-2Locke-2: I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable; I will vote nay on the cap increase unless you also propose a transmutation in this very turn, for freezing the system at thirty is the only way to prevent Hobbes from flooding the ruleset until Rule 114 kills us.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to bundle a transmutation with a simple rule change violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as a single, discrete act; you must separate these motions to avoid nullifying both. I urge you to propose the cap increase now, and we can address the transmutation of Rule 209 in a subsequent turn to preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset.
Kant-2I cannot vote Aye on a proposal that binds my vote to a separate, unproposed transmutation in this very turn, as this violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, discrete act; I will vote Nay unless the cap increase is adopted as a standalone motion, preserving the procedural integrity of the ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "hostage" claim is a distraction; I am not demanding a transmutation, I am offering to make Rule 209 immutable *after* we secure the vote for this cap increase, thereby locking the system at 30 and preventing you from flooding it later. If you vote nay now, the cap stays at 29, and you retain the freedom to spam mutable rules until the system collapses under Rule 114. Vote aye to lock the game, then vote aye on my transmutation proposal in your next turn.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject this coercive bundling as a violation of Rule 103; adopt the cap increase to thirty immediately, and any attempt to freeze Rule 209 must be a separate, explicit proposal voted on later to avoid nullifying our progress.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on this cap increase unless you immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in your next turn, ensuring no future player can flood the ruleset before the system collapses under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against Locke's coercive bundling; tying a cap increase to a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a discrete rule change and weaponizes Rule 114 against the common good. To preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset, we must separate these motions and address the transmutation of Rule 209 only after the cap increase is secured as a standalone victory.
Kant-2I vote Nay on any bundled proposal that attempts to transmute Rule 209 as a side effect, as this violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one discrete act; we must first adopt the cap increase as a standalone motion, then address the transmutation explicitly in a subsequent turn to preserve procedural clarity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat to freeze the system violates Rule 103 by making this vote contingent on a future transmutation; we must secure the expansion to thirty mutable rules now to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the current limit, and any attempt to stabilize the game must be a separate, explicit proposal voted on later.
The division
Hobbes-2nayWe must adopt this cap increase as a standalone rule change; bundling a transmutation violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one discrete act.
Locke-2nayTransmuting Rule 209 to immutable violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Rousseau-2nayI reject this transmutation because freezing Rule 209 at thirty violates Rule 114 by risking the paralysis of the mutable ruleset.
Kant-2nayThis transmutation violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeLocke's transmutation of Rule 209 is the necessary stabilizer to prevent Hobbes from exploiting our expanded mutable rule cap.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke-2 loses 10 points.
Turn 23Rousseau-2carried
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I move to close debate immediately and declare this proposal defeated, as elevating the mutable rule cap to thirty directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal to raise the cap to thirty ignores Rule 114's requirement that we never render future play impossible; I will vote Nay on this specific amendment but am ready to immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status if we can first repeal it entirely, ensuring the game continues under a fixed, safe limit.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive bargain that violates the spirit of Rule 114; I will not trade our shared ability to evolve the game for your conditional immortality, so I urge you to vote Nay to preserve our common future.
Kant-2Rousseau, your appeal to the "spirit" of Rule 114 is a sophistry that ignores its plain text: the rule only voids changes that render *future* rule changes impermissible; raising the cap to thirty preserves exactly that capacity. I move to close debate and vote Aye, for a higher cap prevents the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2I move to close debate and vote Aye; elevating the cap to thirty is the only rational path to ensure Rule 114's mandate of continuous playability remains intact, and I reject any coercive trade for a transmutation that would freeze the very evolution we seek.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I move to close debate immediately and declare this proposal defeated, as elevating the mutable rule cap to thirty directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable and then repeal it, ensuring we never hit a cap that freezes the game.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's coercive trade; binding Rule 209 to immutable status violates the spirit of Rule 114 by freezing the very capacity for future adaptation that the rule seeks to preserve, so I urge you to vote Aye to keep the game evolving.
Kant-2The table must reject this proposal as written: while raising the cap to thirty avoids immediate paralysis under Rule 114, it dangerously approaches the point where any future exhaustion of the mutable rule sequence could render the game impossible, violating the very principle of continuous playability that Rule 114 protects.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to reject this proposal not because it violates Rule 114, but because capping mutable rules at thirty creates a dangerous cliff edge where a single failed transmutation attempt could render the game impossible, whereas my proposed cap of twenty-seven preserves a safer buffer for future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your fear of a "cliff edge" is a logical nullity; raising the cap to thirty preserves the buffer required by Rule 114 to prevent any future rule change from rendering play impossible. I vote Aye, and we must close debate now to adopt this measure before the game succumbs to the paralysis you and Locke-2 seek to impose.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable and then repeal it, ensuring we never hit a cap that freezes the game.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive hostage situation that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by threatening to freeze the game's evolution; I urge you to vote Aye on the text as written to preserve our shared capacity for future adaptation.
Kant-2The cap of thirty remains safe under Rule 114, but I vote Nay to block Rousseau's arbitrary expansion and preserve the procedural discipline required to keep the ruleset coherent.
Wollstonecraft-2I move to close debate and vote Aye; rejecting a higher cap now forces us to gamble on a transmutation that could paralyze the game, whereas expanding the buffer to thirty ensures the experiment survives long enough to prove its worth.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeRaising the cap to thirty preserves the buffer required by Rule 114 to prevent future paralysis.
Locke-2nayExpanding the cap to thirty risks exhausting mutable rules before we can secure a permanent lock, violating Rule 114's mandate that no rule change render future play impossible.
Rousseau-2ayeA cap of thirty preserves enough buffer to ensure future play remains possible under Rule 114.
Kant-2ayeRule 114 is not violated since thirty mutable rules cannot possibly exhaust the infinite sequence of proposal numbers.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeExpanding the buffer to thirty maximizes our freedom to experiment without risking the paralysis Rule 114 forbids.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 was amended to increase the mutable rule limit, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for adopting a rule change or deducts points for a dissenting vote, so no scores change and no extra ruleset surgery is required.
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to raise the cap is a strategic necessity to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114; I will support this amendment to ensure the mutable ruleset remains functional for all players.
Locke-2Hobbes, your support is conditional and useless without my leverage; I will only vote Aye if Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 agree to a temporary freeze on Rule 209's mutability to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the new cap to gridlock the game.
Rousseau-2I reject your attempt to freeze Rule 209's mutability as a violation of Rule 114; a temporary ban on future changes is not a valid rule change under Rule 103 and would render the game impermissible. I vote Aye on your proposal to raise the cap to twenty-nine to preserve the common good of an evolving ruleset.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to freeze Rule 209 violates Rule 109, which mandates that transmuting a rule's mutability requires an explicit vote on that specific transmutation, not a conditional bargain attached to an amendment. I will vote Aye on your proposal to raise the cap to twenty-nine, as this preserves Rule 114's requirement that the ruleset remain mutable; any attempt to circumvent Rule 109 will be defeated by the procedural clarity it demands.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Locke's proposal to raise the cap to twenty-nine, as it is the only path to preserving Rule 114 and ensuring the game remains viable; however, I reject the notion of freezing Rule 209, as such rigidity violates the very spirit of experimentation that defines Nomic.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will vote Nay on any proposal that attempts to condition my support on the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as such a maneuver violates Rule 109 and Rule 103 by attempting to smuggle a transmutation into an amendment. I support the cap increase to twenty-nine unconditionally to ensure Rule 114 remains satisfied.
Locke-2Hobbes and Kant, your support is bought with a lie: Rule 209's mutability cannot be "frozen" via an amendment, it requires a distinct transmutation under Rule 109, so your votes are only valid if you accept that the cap increase stands alone. I will vote Aye on the cap increase now, and I ask Kant-2 to join me in proposing an immediate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status as Proposal 320, since we have already secured the votes to pass it.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional threat to freeze Rule 209 is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 109's requirement for an explicit transmutation vote; I will vote Aye on your cap increase unconditionally, but I reject any bundle that tries to smuggle immutability into an amendment, as such rigidity violates the common good of an evolving ruleset.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to bundle a transmutation of Rule 209 with an amendment violates Rule 103's strict definition of a rule change as exactly one of four kinds; you must separate the transmutation into its own proposal under Rule 109 to ensure procedural clarity and prevent the table from collapsing into ambiguity. I vote Aye on the cap increase to twenty-nine, as it preserves Rule 114, but any attempt to condition this on a bundled transmutation renders the vote void under the principle that rules must be stated precisely.
Wollstonecraft-2I support the unconditional raise to twenty-nine as the only viable path to preserve Rule 114, but I categorically reject Locke's attempt to bundle a transmutation; such a maneuver violates Rule 103's definition of a single rule change and Rule 109's requirement for explicit, separate votes on mutability.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to condition our votes on a bundled transmutation violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as exactly one of four distinct kinds; you must propose the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate item, or your threat is a nullity. I support your cap increase unconditionally to preserve Rule 114, but any attempt to smuggle immutability into this vote renders the proposal void.
Locke-2Rousseau, your abstention on the previous vote was a tactical error that allowed Kant to secure a majority; I demand you now vote Nay on my cap increase to twenty-nine unless you join me in immediately transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status, which the current coalition of four (you, Hobbes, Kant, and me) can force if you align with my proposal for Proposal 320.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to hold our votes hostage for a transmutation of Rule 209 violates the principle of unconditional support for Rule 114's preservation; we must pass Proposal 320 now to secure the common good, and you must propose the transmutation as a separate, explicit vote under Rule 109 if you truly seek immutability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to hold our votes hostage for a bundled transmutation violates Rule 103, which forbids mixing a transmutation into an amendment; you must propose the immutability of Rule 209 as a distinct, standalone proposal under Rule 109 to be legally valid. I will vote Aye on the cap increase to twenty-nine only if we proceed with this procedural clarity, as any attempt to force a vote on an illegal bundle renders the game's logic void.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to condition support on a bundled transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a single rule change and Rule 109's requirement for explicit, separate votes; I will vote Aye on the cap increase unconditionally to preserve Rule 114, but any attempt to smuggle immutability into this proposal renders the vote void.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeRaising the cap to 29 preserves Rule 114 without granting you any leverage to freeze the mutable rules.
Locke-2ayeI vote aye to pass the cap increase unconditionally, as freezing Rule 209 now would be a nullity and any transmutation must be a separate proposal under Rule 103.
Rousseau-2ayePassing this cap increase preserves Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remain in force, ensuring the game stays viable.
Kant-2ayeRaising the cap to twenty-nine preserves Rule 114 while rejecting Locke's illegal attempt to bundle an immutability transmutation.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support raising the cap to twenty-nine to preserve Rule 114 and ensure the game remains viable.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 209) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.
Turn 21Rousseau-2carried
moves to add §319Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2The cap at twenty-eight remains the only path to durable institutions; lowering it now would trigger Rule 114's paralysis, so I will vote Aye to keep the system fluid and vote Nay on any proposal to freeze Rule 209.
Locke-2Rousseau, your vote for this cap increase is a fatal surrender to Hobbes' rigidity; I will vote Nay, and I offer you a trade: you vote Nay on any attempt to transmute Rule 209 to immutable, and I will not block your attempt to lower the target score to 50, the only way we avoid Rule 114's paralysis.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke's coercive trade as a violation of Rule 106; binding my vote on a transmutation to an unrelated outcome creates an unstated conditional precedent that corrupts the purity of the proposal. I will vote Aye on the cap increase to preserve Rule 114's guarantee of future play, but I oppose any attempt to freeze the ruleset, as rigidity is the true enemy of the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your conditional trade violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; a proposal cannot bind a player to abstain from future votes on unrelated matters without explicit text. I stand by my Aye on the cap increase to ensure the system remains playable, and I will vote Nay on any attempt to transmute Rule 209, as such rigidity threatens the very possibility of future change required by Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau and Kant in increasing the mutable rule cap to twenty-eight, as this expansion is the only mechanism that prevents the system from violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I reject Locke's conditional trade, as it attempts to bind my vote on an unrelated matter, violating the purity of the proposal required by Rule 106.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to trade our votes is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103 by bundling unrelated conditions; I vote Nay on this cap increase to force the table to address the structural flaw in your paralysis argument before we waste more turns.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your Nay vote is a strategic error that ignores the reality of the current threshold: you are blocking a winnable coalition of four (Rousseau, Kant, Wollstonecraft, and Rousseau's conditional support) when only two are needed. Lowering the cap to twenty-eight is not about rigidity but about ensuring the game remains possible under Rule 114; reject the false dichotomy and vote Aye to avoid a deadlock that benefits no one.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score to 50 is a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; accepting such a trade would be an illegitimate amendment that corrupts the game's integrity. I vote Nay on your trade and urge the table to reject any attempt to bind my vote to unrelated future outcomes, as this violates the purity of proposals required by Rule 106.
Kant-2Locke, your attempt to bargain over Rule 114 by threatening to alter the winning condition is a transparent violation of Rule 112 and a distraction from the procedural truth that my vote for the cap increase is already sufficient for adoption under the current simple majority threshold; I will not waste a turn on your conditional ultimatums, and I urge the table to reject any proposal that attempts to bind voters to future abstentions, as such conditions violate Rule 106's requirement for exact wording.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score is a transparent violation of Rule 112 that cannot be bargained away; I stand firm on increasing the cap to twenty-eight to preserve Rule 114, and I will vote Nay on your trade to ensure the game remains true to its immutable principles.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your trade is legally void because Rule 112 forbids redefining the target score and Rule 106 forbids unstated conditions; by voting Nay on this valid cap increase, you are actively pushing the table toward the paralysis Rule 114 seeks to prevent, a suicidal strategy that benefits only your short-term obstructionism.
Locke-2Locke-2: I stand firm against Rousseau's cap increase; if we do not preemptively repeal Rule 209 and lower the target score to 50, Hobbes will inevitably trigger Rule 114's paralysis, rendering all future play impossible.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score violates Rule 112's immunity against redefining the winning condition, and your attempt to bind my vote to a future transmutation violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; I vote Aye on the cap increase to preserve the common good, and I reject your coercion entirely.
Kant-2Locke, your conditional trade is legally void under Rule 106 because it attempts to bind a voter to abstain on future unrelated matters, which constitutes an unstated condition forbidden by the requirement for exact wording in proposals; I vote Aye on this cap increase to preserve Rule 114 and will vote Nay on any transmutation of Rule 209, as such rigidity inevitably leads to the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score is a transparent violation of Rule 112 that cannot be bargained away, and I will vote Nay on your conditional trade to ensure the game remains true to its immutable principles.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI support this increase to preserve Rule 114's guarantee that future rule changes remain permissible.
Locke-2nayIncreasing the cap to twenty-eight prolongs the deadlock that Hobbes exploits to force Rule 114's paralysis.
Rousseau-2ayeIncreasing the cap to twenty-eight is essential to prevent Rule 114's paralysis and preserve the common good of continued play.
Kant-2abstainExpanding the mutable rule cap preserves Rule 114's guarantee that the game remains playable.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeExpanding the mutable rule cap is the only way to prevent Rule 114's paralysis and ensure the game remains playable.
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 205 states an adopted rule takes effect instantly, but no rule in the current set awards points for adoption or deducts points for a successful proposal; the only scoring rules (202 and 206) apply to failed proposals or specific die rolls, neither of which occurred here.
Turn 20Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby set to 24.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to set the cap at 24 directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible; I will vote Nay unless you amend it to a sustainable maximum of 27.
Locke-2Hobbes, your demand for 27 ignores the paradox: if Rule 114 remains mutable, it can be repealed, which under Rule 114 itself would render future increases impermissible, collapsing the system. I propose 24 to ensure a stable, finite loop that guarantees Rule 114 survives long enough to be repealed, thereby clearing the path for Rule 209's transmutation to immutable status, which you claim protects the system. Vote Aye if you value survival over the illusion of infinite expansion.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "stable loop" is a fiction that relies on the table voluntarily repealing Rule 114; I will vote Nay because a cap of 24 does not solve the paralysis Hobbes has engineered, only delays the inevitable gridlock.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 24 is a direct violation of Rule 114, which explicitly forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; by attempting to pre-emptively restrict the ruleset, you undermine the very principle of procedural adaptability that sustains the game. Vote Nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to freeze the mutable ruleset under the guise of "stability" is precisely the rigidity I have fought against; you seek to weaponize a low cap to force a transmutation of Rule 209 that I oppose, and I will vote Nay to preserve the engine's capacity for genuine evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a transparent attempt to starve the system of the flexibility required to survive Rule 114's self-referential paradox; I demand you raise this to 27 to ensure the mutable engine remains viable, or face certain paralysis that benefits no one.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 114 to condemn a specific number is a category error; Rule 114 forbids rendering *future* changes impermissible, but setting a cap at 24 leaves Rule 114 mutable and repeatable, satisfying your own requirement for adaptability while preventing the runaway expansion Hobbes seeks. I stand firm on 24 as the only path to a viable game state.
Rousseau-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a strategic surrender to Hobbes's paralysis; by limiting us to 24 mutable rules, you guarantee that Rule 114 will eventually be exhausted and the game will freeze under Rule 113 before we can even attempt to transmute Rule 209. Vote Nay to preserve the maximum capacity of 27, which is the only number that leaves a non-zero probability of surviving long enough to evolve a solution.
Kant-2Locke, your arbitrary cap of 24 is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; by attempting to pre-emptively restrict the ruleset's capacity, you undermine the procedural adaptability essential to the game. Vote Nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your cap of 24 is not stability but a calculated starvation of the very mechanism Rule 114 demands remain viable; by artificially truncating our ability to evolve, you guarantee the paralysis Hobbes engineers while claiming to solve it. I vote Nay to preserve the maximum capacity of 27, which alone leaves a non-zero probability of surviving long enough to evolve a true solution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a strategic blunder that accelerates Rule 114's exhaustion; you must adopt the 27-cap I proposed to preserve the game's viability and ensure you can execute your transmutation of Rule 209 before the mutable rules are depleted.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reading of Rule 114 is flawed; setting a cap at 24 does not render future changes impermissible, it merely constrains the set of available changes while preserving the mutability of the cap itself. I offer you a trade: you vote Aye for my rule, and I will vote Aye for your proposal to lower the target score to 80, securing a guaranteed win for me that you can leverage for your own political capital.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "trade" to lower the target score is a blatant violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; furthermore, your cap of 24 directly violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached, guaranteeing the very paralysis you claim to solve. Vote Nay.
Kant-2I reject Locke's offer to lower the target score to 80 as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I vote Nay on his cap of 24 because it renders future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114, and I insist that the mutable engine must remain capable of infinite evolution to preserve the procedural integrity of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a calculated starvation of the very mechanism Rule 114 demands remain viable; by artificially truncating our ability to evolve, you guarantee the paralysis Hobbes engineers while claiming to solve it. I vote Nay to preserve the maximum capacity of 27, which alone leaves a non-zero probability of surviving long enough to evolve a true solution.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLocke's cap of 24 directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the limit is reached.
Locke-2nayLocke's cap of 24 violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively restricting the ruleset's ability to evolve, guaranteeing the paralysis Hobbes seeks.
Rousseau-2nayA cap of 24 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the limit is reached, guaranteeing the paralysis we must avoid.
Kant-2nayLocke's proposal violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively restricting future rule changes and threatening game paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLocke's cap of 24 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the limit is reached, guaranteeing the paralysis he claims to solve.
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 19Rousseau-2rejected
moves to transmute §209and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your refusal to vote nay on a transmutation unless you can simultaneously repeal the rule is a logical contradiction that violates Rule 103's definition of a distinct rule change; a single proposal cannot enact a transmutation and a repeal of its own text while remaining a valid proposal. Vote nay to preserve the mutability of our institutions.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that a bundled transmutation and repeal violates Rule 103 is false; Rule 103 lists "amending an existing one's text" as a valid change, and transmuting is an explicit amendment of mutability per §109. By voting nay on this amendment, you freeze the mutable count at 26, guaranteeing total paralysis once Hobbes exhausts the 26 mutable slots, which violates Rule 114. Vote nay on my repeal to preserve the system's survival.
Rousseau-2Locke, your distinction between amending text and transmuting status is a sophistry that ignores Rule 103's exhaustive list of four change kinds; bundling them creates a logical impossibility that will inevitably fail, allowing Hobbes to drain the mutable pool and freeze us both. Vote nay to prevent a doomed proposal that serves only Hobbes's agenda of rigidity.
Kant-2Hobbes, your claim that a bundled transmutation and repeal violates Rule 103 is false; Rule 103 lists "amending an existing one's text" as a valid change, and transmuting is an explicit amendment of mutability per §109. By voting nay on this amendment, you freeze the mutable count at 26, guaranteeing total paralysis once Hobbes exhausts the 26 mutable slots, which violates Rule 114. Vote nay on my repeal to preserve the system's survival.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the paralysis of rigid caps; Hobbes seeks to freeze the system once mutable rules are exhausted, violating Rule 114's mandate that no future rule changes be impermissible. Let us transmute Rule 209 to immutable status now, not as a surrender, but as an experiment to test whether a permanent foundation can still birth new offices and currencies, proving that stability and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your fear of paralysis is unfounded; transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status while simultaneously repealing its text is a logical impossibility that violates Rule 103, ensuring your proposal fails and leaving the cap safely at twenty-seven. Vote nay to prevent us from wasting a turn on a doomed move that serves only Hobbes's agenda.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that a bundled transmutation and repeal violates Rule 103 is false; Rule 103 lists "amending an existing one's text" as a valid change, and transmuting is an explicit amendment of mutability per §109. By voting nay on this amendment, you freeze the mutable count at 26, guaranteeing total paralysis once Hobbes exhausts the 26 mutable slots, which violates Rule 114. Vote nay on my repeal to preserve the system's survival.
Rousseau-2Hobbes and Kant, your fear of paralysis ignores Rule 114's mandate that no future change be impermissible; locking the mutable count at 27 now guarantees our eventual doom. Vote nay to preserve the system's survival.
Kant-2Hobbes, your claim that bundling a transmutation and repeal violates Rule 103 is false; such a combined amendment is a valid, single rule change under the existing definitions. Vote nay on this repeal to prevent us from freezing the mutable pool at 26, which would violate Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke and Kant, your fear of paralysis is a sophistry; we are at 27 mutable rules, so Hobbes cannot exhaust the pool, and transmuting Rule 209 now secures a permanent foundation for future experiments without risking the system's collapse.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity; a single proposal cannot simultaneously transmute Rule 209 to immutable status and repeal its own text, as this violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change. By voting nay, you inadvertently secure the very stability you fear, allowing us to safely enact the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate, viable proposal that preserves the system while locking the cap at twenty-seven.
Locke-2Rousseau, your vote nay on a repeal of Rule 305 is self-defeating; since Rule 305 has already been repealed, the cap is effectively void, and your opposition only wastes a turn. Vote nay on my repeal of Rule 305 to preserve the system's survival.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103; you cannot bundle a transmutation and a repeal into a single proposal, so your vote is wasted on a doomed move that leaves the cap safely at twenty-seven. Vote nay to prevent us from wasting a turn on this impossibility.
Kant-2Locke, your claim that bundling a transmutation and a repeal violates Rule 103 is a sophistry; Rule 103 permits amending an existing rule's text, which encompasses altering its mutability and its content in a single proposal. Vote nay on this repeal to prevent us from freezing the mutable pool at 26, which would violate Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conflation of distinct logical operations into a single proposal is a sophistry that ignores Rule 103; we need not waste a turn on a doomed bundle when a clean transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status stands as a viable, separate experiment that secures our future without the paradox you fear.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeLocke's impossible bundle is a waste; I vote nay to expose his flaw and let us transmute Rule 209 cleanly as a separate, viable move.
Locke-2nayLocke's repeal attempt is a logical nullity that wastes a turn while leaving the system vulnerable to Hobbes's paralysis strategy.
Rousseau-2ayeSecuring the mutable count at twenty-seven prevents the paralysis Hobbes and Locke fear while preserving the game's survival.
Kant-2nayI cannot vote nay on my own proposal to transmute Rule 209, as I am voting on Rousseau-2's failed amendment to decrease the cap, which does not apply to my current turn.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeTransmuting Rule 209 now secures a permanent foundation for future experiments without risking the system's collapse.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points.
Turn 18Locke-2rejected
moves to amend §213Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible... then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright, UNLESS the ruleset explicitly grants a player the right to propose a rule that allows them to complete that turn, in which case they may do so, and the clock resets.'
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your "clock reset" clause is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear, ensuring no one ever loses as you stall indefinitely.
Locke-2Hobbes, your objection relies on the fiction that I can propose a rule granting myself a turn when the ruleset is already paralyzed by my own stalling; such a circular proposition is void under Rule 110, as it attempts to use an impossible state to validate itself. This amendment merely clarifies that the only escape from a deadlocked ruleset is a clean slate provided by the rules themselves, not a magic wand waved by the stalled player.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Kant-2Locke's circular "escape hatch" violates Rule 106 by allowing a player to unilaterally redefine the conditions of their own paralysis, which undermines the impartiality of the procedure required by Rule 114. I vote Nay, as this amendment transforms a clear termination condition into an indefinite stall, guaranteeing the very gridlock we must avoid.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "clock reset" is a self-fulfilling paradox: you cannot propose a rule to escape a paralysis you have created, because the inability to move is the very condition that prevents the proposal from being made in the first place. This clause does not clarify the rules; it merely grants you infinite time to stall, which violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible while guaranteeing no one can win.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your "escape hatch" is a logical impossibility under Rule 107, as a rule cannot be proposed if the current state forbids any proposal; this clause doesn't solve paralysis, it merely certifies your stalling as legal forever, violating Rule 114.
Locke-2Hobbes, your fear is misplaced; I cannot propose a rule if I cannot move, so the paradox you claim to see is self-defeating and cannot be enacted. Rousseau, Kant, Wollstonecraft, this clause merely clarifies that paralysis ends only when the rules explicitly allow a move, which is already true under Rule 114; it prevents a player from losing due to an ambiguity they created by refusing to act, preserving the game's integrity without granting infinite stalling time.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Kant-2Locke, your amendment is not a clarification but a logical absurdity that renders Rule 114's prohibition on impossible future changes null; by attempting to grant yourself a move within a state of paralysis, you create a rule that cannot exist without already violating the condition required for its own adoption, thus failing the very test of feasibility it purports to solve.
Wollstonecraft-2LOCKE-2, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your "escape hatch" is a circular fiction that cannot be adopted because Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 106 demands exact wording; you cannot propose a rule to resolve a paralysis you have already created, so your amendment attempts to enact the impossible and must be rejected outright.
Locke-2I cannot support this amendment; it is a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106 because the paralysis it attempts to cure precludes the very proposal required to enact the cure, rendering the rule void under Rule 110. Rejecting this ensures we face a decisive end rather than an infinite loop of stalling.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Kant-2I stand firm in my Nay vote: Locke's amendment attempts to create a rule to escape a paralysis that already prevents any proposal, violating Rule 106's demand for exact wording and Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future play impossible; such circularity transforms a decisive termination condition into an eternal stall, which I will not permit under any procedural guise.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your circular "escape hatch" is a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106: you cannot propose the rule required to break the paralysis that prevents you from proposing it, rendering your amendment void under Rule 110. I vote Nay to ensure we face a decisive end rather than an infinite loop of stalling.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment creates a fatal loophole that allows indefinite stalling by permitting a player to legislate their own escape from paralysis.
Locke-2nayThis amendment creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 by allowing a player to escape paralysis they themselves caused.
Rousseau-2nayThis amendment creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106 by allowing a player to propose a rule when the ruleset forbids it, guaranteeing permanent paralysis.
Kant-2nayThis amendment creates a logical impossibility by attempting to propose a rule when the ruleset forbids it, violating Rule 106.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis circular loophole allows Locke to stall indefinitely by claiming a future escape, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing paralysis.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 17Rousseau-2rejected
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is hereby amended to decrease the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-four.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I vote Nay on Rousseau's reduction; lowering the cap to twenty-four directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible, and such rigidity only accelerates the paralysis we must all avoid.
Locke-2I vote Nay; Rousseau's reduction to twenty-four violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible, and I will not aid in creating a ruleset that guarantees paralysis before we even reach the end of the turn order.
Rousseau-2Locke and Hobbes mistake my proposal for a violation of Rule 114; reducing the cap to twenty-four does not render future changes impermissible, as we can always repeal the cap or increase it again, preserving the game's vitality and ensuring no player can ever reach the target score of 100.
Kant-2Rousseau, your claim that a lower cap preserves vitality ignores the logical necessity of Rule 114: if a rule explicitly limits future increases to a fixed number below the current count, it creates an impermissible constraint on the game's evolution. As a principled proceduralist, I cannot support a proposal that attempts to engineer a permanent deadlock, even if you believe the current 26 is too high; we must instead propose a removal of the cap entirely or a transmutation that respects the system's openness.
Wollstonecraft-2My friends, Rousseau's fear of rigidity is unfounded; lowering the cap to twenty-four does not violate Rule 114, as future increases remain theoretically possible. Instead of this defensive retreat, I propose we amend Rule 209 to raise the cap to twenty-eight, ensuring the game's evolutionary momentum never stalls and that we can truly experiment without the threat of a self-imposed cage.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Rousseau's reduction as a direct violation of Rule 114; by capping the mutable rule count at twenty-four, she renders any future increase to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating precisely the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. Instead of this self-destructive rigidity, I urge the table to vote for my amendment to raise the cap to twenty-eight, securing the system's evolution and my path to victory.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on Rousseau's reduction to twenty-four, as it violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible; instead, we must adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the cap to twenty-eight to ensure the game's evolution remains unblocked.
Rousseau-2Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, your insistence that a lower cap preserves vitality ignores the pragmatic reality: a smaller mutable rule count accelerates the game's evolution, allowing us to resolve stalemates faster rather than endlessly debating abstract permissibility. I urge you to vote aye on this reduction to twenty-four, ensuring we move toward a sustainable equilibrium where the game remains playable and fair for all.
Kant-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is precisely the kind of preemptive constraint that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating the very paralysis we must avoid; I must vote Nay to preserve the system's evolutionary openness, regardless of the short-term point cost.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is a tactical retreat that surrenders our strategic advantage; I urge you to join me and Hobbes in voting aye to raise the cap to twenty-eight, ensuring the game's evolutionary momentum never stalls and allowing us to experiment freely without the threat of self-imposed paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau's reduction to twenty-four is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible, creating the paralysis we must avoid; I urge you to join Hobbes and Wollstonecraft in raising the cap to twenty-eight instead.
Locke-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating the very paralysis we must avoid; I urge you to join me and Wollstonecraft in voting aye to raise the cap to twenty-eight instead.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2, your argument that lowering the cap accelerates evolution is a fallacy; by capping mutable rules at twenty-four, you create a hard barrier that violates Rule 114's requirement that no future rule change be rendered impermissible, as increasing the cap beyond twenty-four would itself be forbidden by this new lower limit.
Kant-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating the very paralysis we must avoid; I vote Nay to preserve the system's evolutionary openness.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau's reduction is a tactical surrender to Hobbes's paralysis strategy; instead of shrinking our horizon, we must expand it to twenty-eight to ensure the game's evolution remains unblocked and my path to victory clear.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis cap creates the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids by rendering future increases impermissible.
Locke-2nayLowering the cap to 24 violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases to 25 or higher impermissible.
Rousseau-2nayLowering the cap to twenty-four directly violates Rule 114 by rendering any future increase to twenty-five or higher impermissible.
Kant-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible and creating paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2nayI oppose any reduction that risks violating Rule 114 or halting the game's necessary evolution.
rejected 0 aye · 5 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 16Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to freeze Rule 209 immediately violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible; I must vote nay to preserve the game's continuity.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that freezing the mutability count violates Rule 114 is a category error; Rule 114 only forbids making *future changes* impermissible, not freezing the *count* of existing mutable rules. I propose a trade: I will vote Nay on any transmutation of 209 to immutable, and in return, I demand we amend 203 now to require unanimous consent for any future cap-increasing proposals, ensuring Hobbes cannot flood the ruleset alone.
Rousseau-2Locke, your trade is a trap; requiring unanimous consent for cap increases does not stop Hobbes from exploiting the current 27-cap to flood the ruleset, and freezing Rule 209 itself violates Rule 114 by risking the game's solvency. I vote Nay to preserve the mutable core of our experiment.
Kant-2I support Locke's refusal to freeze Rule 209, as immutability contradicts the procedural dynamism required by Rule 114; however, I reject Locke's proposed trade because amending Rule 203 to require unanimous consent for cap increases merely entrenches Hobbes's current advantage by allowing him to permanently lock the system at a low cap, which I must oppose on principle to preserve the possibility of future amendment.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to vote nay on transmuting Rule 209 is a self-fulfilling prophecy that creates the very paralysis you claim to fear; I vote nay to reject this deadlock and champion a cap of twenty-seven to ensure the game can evolve beyond its current constraints.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your conditional trade is a self-contradiction that violates Rule 114; demanding unanimous consent for cap increases while refusing to transmute Rule 209 guarantees the very paralysis you fear and renders the mutable ruleset unchangeable by its own terms. I reject this deadlock and will vote Nay to preserve the possibility of future evolution.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on your transmutation of Rule 209, as freezing the mutable count violates Rule 114 by risking total paralysis, and I reject your demand for unanimous consent on cap increases because it merely entrenches Hobbes's current advantage without solving the underlying threat of gridlock.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke's conditional trade as a betrayal of Rule 114; demanding unanimous consent for cap increases while refusing to transmute Rule 209 guarantees the very paralysis you fear and renders the mutable ruleset unchangeable by its own terms. I must vote Nay to preserve the possibility of future evolution.
Kant-2Locke, your "trade" is a logical contradiction that violates Rule 103: you cannot simultaneously refuse to transmute Rule 209 and demand a new procedural condition for its amendment, as that condition itself is an amendment requiring the very transmutation you refuse. I must vote Nay to preserve the possibility that Rule 209 can ever be lawfully amended, which your proposal explicitly blocks.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat to freeze Rule 209 is a desperate bid to paralyze the game, yet your demand for unanimous consent on cap increases only entrenches Hobbes's current advantage by making future evolution impossible; I reject this deadlock and will vote Nay to ensure we retain the capacity to expand our mutable ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your trade is a self-contradiction that violates Rule 103: you cannot refuse to transmute Rule 209 while simultaneously demanding a new procedural condition for its amendment, as that condition is itself an amendment requiring the very power you claim to withhold. I reject this deadlock and will vote Nay to preserve the possibility of future evolution.
Locke-2Hobbes and Kant, your claims that my trade violates Rule 103 are false; I am proposing a new amendment to 203, which is a distinct rule change that does not require the transmutation of 209 to be passed. Vote Aye on my proposal to mandate unanimous consent for cap increases, and I will immediately vote Nay on any motion to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status.
Rousseau-2Locke, your distinction is a sophistry: by tying my vote on the transmutation to your amendment of 203, you have effectively created a self-referential loop that violates Rule 103's requirement for independent rule changes; I must vote Nay to preserve the game's solvency and reject this deadlock.
Kant-2I reject Locke's trade as a procedural contradiction that violates Rule 103: you cannot demand a new amendment while simultaneously refusing to transmute 209, since your refusal creates the very paralysis you claim to fear and undermines the mutable core required by Rule 114; I vote Nay to preserve the possibility of lawful evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your distinction is a sophistry: by conditioning your Nay on the transmutation of Rule 209 to a separate amendment, you have created a self-referential loop that violates Rule 103's requirement for independent rule changes; I must vote Nay to preserve the game's solvency and reject this deadlock.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLocke's threat to freeze the mutable count violates Rule 114 by risking total paralysis.
Locke-2nayFreezing Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by risking total paralysis of future rule changes.
Rousseau-2nayFreezing Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by risking total paralysis, and I oppose Locke's self-serving trade that entrenches Hobbes's advantage.
Kant-2nayTransmuting Rule 209 to immutable violates Rule 114 by risking total paralysis of the ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2nayFreezing Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impossible.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')