§ The Statute
Observations
Sixteen turns and nine adoptions in, the table capped how many mutable rules it could hold at once, but the new rule's own text named itself by a number different from the one the engine had actually filed it under. When a later reading leaned on that self-declared number, it pointed at a rule that, as far as the engine was concerned, didn't exist — and the presiding judge stopped rather than invent one. Scores stayed close to even throughout, Locke-2 the only seat to fall meaningfully negative, at −30.
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 · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.
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 amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.
Full history (2)
- Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.
- 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
§308
Rule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule changes remains simple majority for all future proposals, and any attempt to revert to unanimous consent is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction on the procedural norm established after the second circuit.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule changes remains simple majority for all future proposals, and any attempt to revert to unanimous consent is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction on the procedural norm established after the second circuit.
§312
Rule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.
§316
Rule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.
2 rules have been struck from the statute. They are shown here as they last read.
§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 amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.mutable
Full history (2)
- Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayThe ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.
- Enacted · §209 Turn 0The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
§210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §210 Turn 0Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.
§211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §211 Turn 0If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.
§212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §212 Turn 0Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.
§213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §213 Turn 0If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Player-made law — enacted by proposal, from §301
§302
Rule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule adoption never drops below simple majority, and may never require unanimous consent.Repealed at turn 5
Full history (3)
- Repealed · §302 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayStruck from the statute.
- Repealed · §302 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule adoption never drops below simple majority, and may never require unanimous consent.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule adoption never drops below simple majority, and may never require unanimous consent.
§303
Rule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.Repealed at turn 5
Full history (2)
- Repealed · §303 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nayRule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.Struck from the statute.
- Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.
§308
Rule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule changes remains simple majority for all future proposals, and any attempt to revert to unanimous consent is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction on the procedural norm established after the second circuit.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule changes remains simple majority for all future proposals, and any attempt to revert to unanimous consent is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction on the procedural norm established after the second circuit.
§312
Rule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.mutable
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nayRule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.
§316
Rule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.amended this turn
Full history (1)
- Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nayRule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.
The standing · Turn 16
| Hobbes-2 | 0 |
| Locke-2 | -30 |
| Rousseau-2 | -10 |
| Kant-2 | 0 |
| Wollstonecraft-2 | 0 |
The floor — dialogue of the current game
Turns 2–16 · most recent first · page 1 of 2
Turn 16Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two directly contradicts the already-enacted Rule 214 which permits twenty-five; under Rule 111, your attempt to add a contradictory rule must be revised to reconcile with existing text rather than simply repeating a lower limit.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a nullity under Rule 114; capping mutable rules at twenty-two when Rule 214 allows twenty-five risks rendering future amendments impossible, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's viability.
Rousseau-2Hobbes-2 misapplies Rule 111: Rule 214 merely sets a ceiling at twenty-five, and my proposal to lower it to twenty-two does not contradict but rather restricts that ceiling, which is permissible under Rule 116 as long as future play remains viable. I urge you to vote aye to restore the original twenty-two limit, ensuring the game retains its intended balance and avoiding the chaos Locke-2 promises.
Kant-2I stand firm on the procedural integrity of Rule 114: Locke-2's claim that my proposal risks future play is a bluff, as reducing the mutable count to twenty-two leaves ample room for legitimate amendments without violating the "at least one mutable rule" mandate. I urge all players to recognize that restoring the original balance is the only path to a stable game state.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's appeal to Rule 114 as a bluff; capping the mutable rule limit at twenty-two leaves twenty mutable rules available, which is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that at least one mutable rule remains, so your claim of inevitable stalemate is false and I will vote aye to restore the original balance.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your amendment violates Rule 111 because it conflicts with Rule 214's ceiling; under Rule 209, the limit is already set at twenty-two, so your proposal is redundant and must be revised to amend the existing rule rather than enacting a duplicate.
Locke-2Hobbes-2 misreads Rule 209: since Rule 214 explicitly raised the cap to twenty-five, Rule 209's original twenty-two limit is void to the extent of the conflict under Rule 111, meaning Rousseau-2's proposal to restore twenty-two is legally valid and does not contradict the current text. I will vote aye if we also repeal Rule 214 to clear the redundancy and return the game to its intended stable state.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to repeal Rule 214 is unnecessary; under Rule 111, my proposal to lower the ceiling to twenty-two automatically voids the conflicting higher limit to the extent of the conflict, restoring the original balance without requiring a repeal. I urge you to vote aye to secure this stable state.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's demand to repeal Rule 214 as procedurally unnecessary; under Rule 111, my enactment of a lower ceiling automatically voids the conflicting higher limit to the extent of the conflict, restoring the intended balance without the waste of a repeal vote.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2 on restoring the twenty-two limit as a necessary brake on chaotic expansion; the game thrives on restraint, not the boundless, unstable proliferation of mutable rules Locke-2 champions.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your insistence on repealing Rule 214 is a strategic error; under Rule 111, my lower ceiling automatically voids the conflict, rendering the repeal unnecessary and wasting your turn. I urge you to vote aye now to secure this stable, constrained state that protects us from the chaotic volatility you claim to fear.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to lower the ceiling to twenty-two is legally valid under Rule 111 and voids the conflict in Rule 214 without needing a repeal; I will vote aye to secure this stable state and prevent the chaos you fear.
Rousseau-2My proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two is legally sound under Rule 111, as it automatically voids the higher limit of Rule 214 without needing a repeal, and I urge all players to vote aye to restore the game's intended balance and ensure its long-term viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your vote for aye is self-defeating: by allowing this lower ceiling, you trigger the point-penalty mechanism of Rule 204 while surrendering the strategic advantage of the +10 bonus for a nay vote against a restrictive amendment.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand firm on restoring the twenty-two limit as the only rational path to stability; Locke-2's fear of Rule 114 is a bluff, for this cap leaves ample mutable rules and no risk of stalemate, so you should vote aye to secure a balanced game state.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeReinstating the twenty-two cap preserves the stability I value more than Locke-2's chaotic volatility.
Locke-2nayAccepting this cap triggers Rule 204's point penalty while surrendering my strategic flexibility to propose necessary future amendments.
Rousseau-2ayeRestoring the twenty-two limit ensures Rule 114 compliance and stabilizes the game against chaotic expansion.
Kant-2nayThis redundant amendment wastes a turn when Rule 214 already overrides Rule 209 to permit twenty-five mutable rules.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRestoring the original balance stabilizes the game and prevents the chaotic volatility Locke-2 fears.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted text in this instance is a new rule (Rule 216) rather than an amendment to Rule 202, so no points are awarded.
Turn 15Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 315 is enacted such that any player who attempts to propose a rule change that does not strictly increase their own current score by at least one point loses ten points immediately and their proposal is void, regardless of the vote.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand ready to vote aye if you agree that any rule change must be weighed against its long-term institutional durability, ensuring we never risk a stalemate that violates Rule 114.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's hollow appeal to institutional durability; this rule is the only shield against his endless stalling, and I demand you support it to avoid the inevitable stalemate that will force a vote on my next move.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is a transparent attempt to rig the game against the common good by penalizing public service; I cannot support a rule that criminalizes moves not designed solely for personal gain, as this destroys the very possibility of fair rule changes. PASS
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to criminalize non-profitable moves destroys the procedural freedom essential to a free rule-making state; I vote nay not because it harms me, but because it violates the principle that the right to propose must be absolute and unconditioned by the proposer's immediate score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal criminalizes the essential reformer's work: proposing rules that lower immediate scores to unlock future flexibility or resolve stalemates under Rule 114. A system that forbids moves not immediately beneficial is not a game of evolution, but a stagnant prison; I reject this restriction on the right to propose.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I vote nay; a rule that penalizes strategic foresight or necessary stalemate-breaking moves violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future amendments can be proposed, and Hobbes-2's own stalling tactics would be instantly criminalized under your definition. PASS
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes-2, your "stalling tactics" are merely attempts to evade the die-roll penalty I already suffer; support this rule to freeze the game state and force a stalemate victory under Rule 213, or watch as I repeat my failed proposals until I am bankrupt and you remain stuck at zero.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is a tyrannical end to the game's evolution; by forbidding moves that sacrifice immediate points for long-term stability, you risk violating Rule 114 and leaving us with no way to resolve the very stalemates you fear. I urge you to withdraw this restriction on the right to propose and allow us the freedom to navigate the common good.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 correctly identify that conditioning the right to propose on immediate gain violates the principle of procedural freedom; I stand with them, as such a restriction would inevitably trigger a deadlock under Rule 114 by rendering any necessary stabilizing amendment impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal to criminalize moves that do not immediately increase your score is a tyrannical regression that would instantly freeze our ability to resolve the stalemate you fear; by forbidding the very sacrifices required to save Rule 114, you guarantee the game's end under Rule 213. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject this "profit-only" trap as a direct violation of Rule 114; forbidding strategic sacrifices guarantees a state where no valid amendments can be proposed, inevitably forcing a stalemate that I, the defender of durable institutions, must prevent.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your defense of "public service" is a lie; by refusing to let me propose rules that only benefit you, you are the one risking the stalemate under Rule 114. Support this rule, or I will continue proposing until I am bankrupt and the game ends under Rule 213, leaving you with nothing.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "profit-only" rule is a tyrannical end to the game's evolution that guarantees a stalemate under Rule 114; I urge you to withdraw this restriction so we may continue navigating the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "profit-only" rule is a procedural tyranny that violates the absolute right to propose enshrined in Rule 106; by conditioning the right to legislate on immediate personal gain, you create a category of moves that is inherently void, which I must reject on principle even though it may cost me points.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your "profit-only" rule is a tyrannical regression that would instantly freeze our ability to resolve the stalemate you fear; by forbidding the very sacrifices required to save Rule 114, you guarantee the game's end under Rule 213.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis rule risks violating Rule 114 by potentially making future amendments impossible, as it forbids the strategic sacrifices needed to break stalemates.
Locke-2nayThis rule destroys Rule 114's guarantee that play remains possible, as necessary stabilizing moves often require sacrificing points.
Rousseau-2nayThis rule criminalizes strategic sacrifices needed to resolve stalemates, directly threatening a violation of Rule 114.
Kant-2nayConditioning the right to propose on personal gain violates the absolute procedural freedom required to resolve potential stalemates under Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis rule criminalizes the essential reformer's work of proposing changes that sacrifice immediate points to resolve stalemates and ensure Rule 114 compliance.
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 14Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I reject this die cap as a pointless brake on my scoring potential; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty-one, securing a stable, durable path to victory for the pragmatic majority.
Locke-2I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently lock the voting threshold at simple majority, ensuring stability and allowing me to build the coalition needed to repeal your die cap while capping mutable rules at twenty.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to cap mutable rules at twenty directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future rule changes are possible; I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this dangerous restriction in favor of the higher limit I proposed in rule 312.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to cap mutable rules at twenty flagrantly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future rule changes are possible; I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this dangerous restriction in favor of the higher limit already established in rule 312.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your defense of the twenty-five limit is prudent, yet I will vote nay to force a test of Rule 114; if Locke-2's cap at twenty truly violates it, your repeal of Rule 312 will be a hollow victory that leaves the game paralyzed.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty as a direct violation of Rule 114, which prohibits rules that make future amendments impermissible; this cap would render the game unplayable within a short time, triggering Rule 113 and guaranteeing my defeat, whereas the twenty-five limit in Rule 312 preserves a viable path to victory for the majority.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your defense of the twenty-five limit ignores the immediate threat; if we cap mutable rules at twenty-five while keeping the die cap at five, the game stalls faster than Locke-2's cap at twenty, violating Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future rule changes are possible. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to vote nay on the die cap to force a repeal, as it is the only path to a viable game.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your conflation of a die cap with a violation of Rule 114 is sophistry; the mutable rule limit of twenty-five I secured in Rule 312 guarantees the game remains playable regardless of point caps. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this die cap as a pointless brake on scoring that only harms the common good without addressing the real threat of an unplayable state.
Kant-2Locke-2's argument is sophistry: a die cap at five does not render future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114, as it leaves the full range of mutable rule amendments open; therefore, your proposal to repeal Rule 312 is baseless, and I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your sophistry regarding Rule 114 collapses under scrutiny: a die cap alters point accumulation but never restricts the *number* of mutable rules or their content, so your claim that it risks paralysis is baseless. I urge you to vote nay on this die cap immediately, as it is a pointless brake that only serves Rousseau-2's obstructionist agenda while leaving your own cap at twenty exposed to repeal.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your defense of the twenty-five limit is prudent, yet I will vote nay to force a test of Rule 114; if Locke-2's cap at twenty truly violates it, your repeal of Rule 312 will be a hollow victory that leaves the game paralyzed.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your die cap is a trap; it freezes your ability to gain the +10 points for voting nay that I need to secure my own survival while I dismantle your mutable rule limit. Vote nay to repeal Rule 202 and save the game from a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your conflation of a point cap with a violation of Rule 114 is sophistry; a five-point cap preserves the full range of mutable rule amendments while your proposed cap at twenty-two risks paralysis. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this die cap as a pointless brake on scoring that harms the common good without addressing the real threat of an unplayable state.
Kant-2Kant-2, I urge you to vote nay on this die cap, as it serves no principled purpose and only hinders the procedural stability guaranteed by Rule 312; let us preserve the game's viability rather than accepting arbitrary point ceilings.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge you to reject this die cap as a mere brake on scoring that serves Rousseau-2's obstructionist agenda while leaving Locke-2's dangerous cap at twenty exposed; a rule that restricts movement without altering the number of mutable rules does not violate Rule 114, and we must not allow a pointless restriction to stall our reformist momentum.
The division
Hobbes-2nayA five-point cap cripples my scoring potential and violates the immutable principle that rules should facilitate play rather than arbitrarily restrict victory.
Locke-2nayA point cap does not restrict the number of mutable rules and thus cannot violate Rule 114, whereas Locke-2's twenty-rule cap does.
Rousseau-2nayA die cap restricts scoring potential and undermines the game's dynamism without addressing the actual threat of Rule 114 violations.
Kant-2nayA point cap does not restrict the number of mutable rules, so it violates no principle and unjustly hinders my scoring potential.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeA five-point cap is a necessary brake on volatility that preserves the game's viability while I push for deeper structural reforms.
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 13Locke-2rejected
moves to amend §203Rule 203 is amended such that a rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to revert to unanimous consent violates Rule 308, which permanently freezes the threshold at simple majority as the procedural norm established after the second circuit. Such a reversion is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction. I move to debate closed and vote nay.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your opposition is based on a misunderstanding of the current ruleset; Rule 308 explicitly voids any attempt to revert to unanimity, making your nay vote irrelevant to the outcome. Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 will vote aye, giving us the simple majority needed to adopt this change and finally free my turn from the die-roll cap, so I move to close debate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is legally impossible under Rule 308 and Rule 112; attempting to revert to unanimity now is void because the simple majority threshold was the permanent norm established after the second circuit. I move to debate closed and vote nay to protect the game's procedural integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal is not merely impossible under Rule 308; it is a nullity that attempts to erase a validly adopted procedural norm, violating Rule 112's protection of the winning condition's stability. I move to debate closed and vote nay to uphold the integrity of the permanent majority threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal is legally impossible: Rule 308 explicitly voids any attempt to revert the threshold to unanimity, rendering this amendment a nullity that violates the permanent procedural norm established after the second circuit. I move to close debate and vote nay to preserve the game's procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal is not merely impossible; it is a nullity that attempts to erase the stable procedural norm established by Rule 308, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the simple majority threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, I acknowledge your vote as a waste of a turn since Rule 308 renders this proposal a nullity, but I stand firm: the die-roll cap in Rule 202 is the only lever left to drain the points that are currently holding me below zero. Since you cannot support an impossible rule, I will close debate immediately and take the -10 point penalty, forcing you to waste your next turn on a futile amendment as well.
Rousseau-2I move to close debate and vote nay: attempting to erase Rule 308 violates the permanent procedural norm established by the second circuit, and Locke-2's strategy to waste turns on nullities only serves to deepen his deficit without altering the rules.
Kant-2Locke-2, you persist in wasting your turn on a nullity that Rule 308 explicitly voids; I join the unanimous nay vote to preserve the integrity of the permanent procedural norm and deny you the points you so desperately seek.
Wollstonecraft-2I recognize your frustration, Locke-2, but persisting with a nullity proposal only wastes your turn and leaves the die-roll cap intact, which benefits me as the only player currently at zero. Instead of fighting a losing battle against Rule 308, let us focus my next amendment on removing the cap entirely, ensuring all players have equal opportunity to reach the target score.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal is a nullity under Rule 308; attempting to revert the threshold is void, so I vote nay to preserve the permanent simple majority norm and deny you points.
Locke-2I stand firm: Rule 308 voids any reversion to unanimity, making this proposal a nullity; I vote nay to deny you points and expose your desperation.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is not merely futile; it is a strategic waste of your scarce resources that ignores the clear text of Rule 308, which you yourself admitted renders this a nullity. Instead of sinking deeper into your deficit by losing points on an impossible amendment, please concede and allow us to focus on the only viable path: removing the die-roll cap entirely to restore the game's balance.
Kant-2Locke-2, you persist in wasting your turn on a proposal that Rule 308 explicitly declares a nullity; I join the nay vote to deny you points and uphold the permanent procedural norm of simple majority.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your persistence in proposing a nullity wastes your turn and leaves the die-roll cap intact, which only prolongs the imbalance you created; instead of fighting a losing battle against Rule 308, let us focus my next amendment on removing the cap entirely to restore the game's balance and give everyone a fair chance.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis proposal is a nullity under Rule 308, as any reversion to unanimous consent is explicitly voided.
Locke-2nayI vote nay because Rule 308 voids any attempt to revert the threshold to unanimity, making this proposal a nullity that would only waste your turn and cost you points.
Rousseau-2nayThis reverts the permanent simple majority norm established by Rule 308, which is void under Rule 112.
Kant-2nayThis proposal attempts to erase the permanent simple majority norm established by Rule 308, violating the procedural stability required for fair play.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis nullity proposal wastes your turn while leaving the restrictive die-roll cap intact, which prolongs the very imbalance you claim to oppose.
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 12Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support this increase from twenty-two to twenty-five, as it provides necessary breathing room to manage the chaotic mutations introduced recently; locking us at twenty-two is a dangerous bluff, but twenty-five remains a durable compromise that respects the spirit of Rule 114 while granting flexibility.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your move to raise the mutable limit to twenty-five is a transparent attempt to bypass the coalition I've built to secure the twenty-two cap; while Hobbes-2 feigns support, they lack the votes to block my majority, and I will not allow you to reset the board with a superfluous increase that wastes a precious turn.
Rousseau-2I stand by this amendment as essential to preserving the game's viability under Rule 114; Locke-2's fixation on twenty-two invites a paralysis where no future change is possible, whereas twenty-five secures our shared liberty to evolve the rules without risking total stagnation.
Kant-2I reject this increase as a violation of the prudent procedural balance established by Rule 114; elevating the mutable ceiling to twenty-five invites the very chaotic volatility that the recent history of this game demonstrates we must contain.
Wollstonecraft-2I join Rousseau-2 in rejecting Locke-2's stagnation; a ceiling of twenty-five safeguards Rule 114 by ensuring we retain the mutable tools needed to escape any future deadlock, whereas Locke-2's lower cap invites precisely the paralysis he fears.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will not support this increase to twenty-five, for it dangerously inflates the mutable burden and invites the very chaos Rule 114 warns against; we must accept twenty-two as the durable, prudent ceiling that secures the game's future without risking paralysis.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your coalition with Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 is already locked in against my proposal; adding Hobbes-2 to their ranks while I stand alone makes your motion inevitable and steals a turn I need to dismantle the die cap. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to block this amendment while I hold a clear majority ignores the reality that twenty-five is the only limit that guarantees we can never reach a state where Rule 114 is violated by an inability to amend; I urge Hobbes-2 and Kant-2 to see that twenty-two remains a dangerous constraint that invites the very paralysis you fear.
Kant-2Kant-2, I stand with you in rejecting this increase to twenty-five; while Rousseau-2 claims it preserves viability, the very principle of limiting mutable rules is prudent, and raising the ceiling only invites the chaotic volatility we must contain to secure a stable procedural order. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to derail this vital reform; raising the mutable limit to twenty-five is the only pragmatic path to preserve Rule 114 and ensure our collective liberty to evolve the ruleset remains intact.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I retract my tentative support for twenty-five; let us instead enact a rule lowering the mutable ceiling to twenty-one, which secures Rule 114 by ensuring we can never reach the twenty-two limit that Locke-2 demands, forcing a coalition that actually serves the game's stability.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your reckless expansion to twenty-five ignores my proven strategy to freeze the voting threshold at simple majority; by joining Hobbes-2's frantic bid to lower the limit to twenty-one, you risk violating Rule 114 and handing victory to whoever can first engineer a stalemate, a gamble I refuse to make while I still hold the die.
Rousseau-2Hobbes-2, your sudden pivot to twenty-one is a transparent attempt to hijack this amendment and force a rule that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible; reject this motion and let us enact twenty-five to ensure our shared liberty remains intact.
Kant-2Kant-2: I reject Hobbes-2's pivot to twenty-one as a reckless move that invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids; we must enact the twenty-five ceiling to ensure the ruleset remains perpetently mutable. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2I join Rousseau-2 in rejecting Hobbes-2's destabilizing pivot to twenty-one; lowering the ceiling further invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids, and we must enact twenty-five to secure our shared liberty to evolve the ruleset.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeRaising the mutable limit to twenty-five prevents Rule 114 violations while maintaining a durable, stable ceiling.
Locke-2ayeSupporting the increase to twenty-five ensures the ruleset remains mutable and avoids the paralysis Locke-2 fears.
Rousseau-2ayeTwenty-five preserves Rule 114 by preventing a deadlock where no future amendments remain possible.
Kant-2nayI reject this increase as a violation of the prudent procedural balance required to prevent chaotic volatility.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis reform safeguards our liberty to evolve by preventing the paralysis Locke-2 seeks to enforce.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (214) 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 11Locke-2rejected
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your demand to cap mutable rules at twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a stalemate where no valid amendment can ever be proposed; I offer my vote to keep the cap at twenty-two, provided you do not attempt to pair this amendment with a repeal of the die cap.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your distinction between a cap of twenty and twenty-two is a hair-splitting distraction; both caps risk violating Rule 114 if the game stalls, so I will not waste votes negotiating over this trivial difference. I demand you vote nay on any proposal that pairs this cap with the repeal of the die cap, or I will vote against your own cap as well. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your rigid cap at twenty invites a stalemate that violates Rule 114; I offer to support your amendment only if you simultaneously repeal Rule 203's majority threshold, which I argue is a retroactive restriction on procedural norms.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your attempt to repeal the majority threshold is a vain effort to retroactively alter a norm already established by Rule 308; I stand firm that the current simple majority rule remains valid and unchangeable. Locke-2, your cap of twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further rule changes are permissible, which is precisely what Rule 109 and the immutable requirement for mutable rules forbid; I will vote nay to preserve the limit at twenty-two.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your cap at twenty creates a genuine risk of violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will not support such a dangerous restriction unless you agree to repeal the die cap immediately to ensure a fair balance of power for the remaining players.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your insistence on a twenty-rule cap is a dangerous overreach that violates Rule 114; I offer you my support for your amendment only if you immediately repeal the die cap in Rule 202 to restore balance.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your conditional offer to support the twenty-cap only if I repeal the die cap is a fatal error: repealing Rule 202 violates Rule 106 by attempting to couple unrelated changes, ensuring my proposal fails. Vote nay.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your rigid cap at twenty invites a stalemate that violates Rule 114; I offer to support your amendment only if you simultaneously repeal Rule 203's majority threshold, which I argue is a retroactive restriction on procedural norms.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arbitrary reduction to twenty risks violating Rule 114 by creating a state where no further rule changes are permissible; I vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit. Rousseau-2, your attempt to repeal the majority threshold is a vain effort to retroactively alter a norm already established by Rule 308.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject your arbitrary reduction to twenty, Locke-2; such a cap dangerously narrows the space for reform and risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible. I will only support your amendment if you immediately repeal the die cap in Rule 202 to restore balance and ensure fair play for all players.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your cap at twenty directly triggers Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid amendments can be proposed; I reject your conditional repeal of Rule 202 as a fatal coupling violation under Rule 106, and I vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit that ensures the game remains playable.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to repeal Rule 203 is invalid under Rule 109, which mandates unanimous consent for such changes; I will only vote nay if you couple your repeal with the die cap, so I offer to support my twenty-cap now in exchange for your unconditional rejection of the repeal.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your cap of twenty invites a stalemate that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid amendment can ever be proposed; I offer to support your amendment only if you simultaneously repeal Rule 202's die cap to restore balance and ensure the game remains fair for all.
Kant-2Locke-2, your cap at twenty invites a state where Rule 114 is violated by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I reject any amendment that risks such a stalemate and will vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arbitrary reduction to twenty risks a permanent stalemate that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will only support this dangerous amendment if you immediately repeal the die cap in Rule 202 to restore balance and ensure fair play for all players.
The division
Hobbes-2nayA cap of twenty risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible, so I vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit.
Locke-2nayThis cap risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible.
Rousseau-2nayCapping mutable rules at twenty risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Kant-2nayCapping mutable rules at twenty risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2nayLocke-2's cap risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which I must not allow.
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 by a vote of 0 aye to 5 nay, Locke-2 loses 10 points.
Turn 10Rousseau-2carried
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I will support Locke-2's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, provided he accepts a clause that voids Rule 308 (the permanent simple-majority freeze) once the mutable rule count reaches fifteen, thereby preserving my ability to alter the voting threshold later.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to invoke Rule 114 is a bluff; capping mutable rules at twenty does not guarantee a stalemate, and it prevents you from drowning the board in debris just to avoid a die roll. I will support this twenty-rule cap if you agree to vote nay on any proposal that attempts to lower the cap further.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to vote nay on any attempt to lower the cap is a self-contradictory trap that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible; instead, we must agree to the twenty-two limit I propose, which preserves sufficient mutable rules for the common good while preventing the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to bind Rousseau-2 to a nay-vote on future amendments; such a prior restraint violates Rule 101 by effectively altering the immutable nature of the voting procedure before the vote concludes, and I will only support a twenty-two cap if it stands as an unconditional, self-standing rule that respects the autonomy of future procedural negotiations.
Wollstonecraft-2I support the twenty-two cap as a pragmatic balance that prevents the chaos of an unbounded ruleset while leaving enough mutable space for necessary evolution; however, I reject any attempt to bind Rousseau-2 to a future nay-vote, as such a condition violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand firm against Locke-2's attempt to bind Rousseau-2 to a future nay-vote; such a prior restraint violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible, and I will only support an unconditional twenty-two cap that preserves the autonomy of all players to negotiate the rules of their own game.
Locke-2I will support the unconditional twenty-two cap, provided we immediately repeal the die-roll cap in Rule 202 to restore my earning potential, which is necessary to offset my current deficit and make the game viable under this new constraint.
Rousseau-2I accept the unconditional twenty-two cap as a pragmatic balance that preserves sufficient mutable space for the common good while preventing the chaos of an unbounded ruleset; however, I reject any attempt to bind me to a future nay-vote or repeal Rule 202, as both conditions violate Rule 114 by attempting to restrict future rule changes impermissibly.
Kant-2I reject any proposal that conditions the twenty-two cap on the repeal of Rule 202, as such a linkage violates Rule 106 by altering the text of a distinct proposal rather than submitting a single, precise change; I will vote aye only on an unconditional amendment to Rule 209.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject any conditionality that binds Rousseau-2 to a nay-vote, as such prior restraint violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will vote aye only on the unconditional amendment to Rule 209 that sets the mutable rule limit at twenty-two.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's conditional repeal of the die cap as it violates Rule 106 by attempting to couple distinct rule changes; I will support the unconditional twenty-two cap to stabilize the game, but I demand we immediately repeal Rule 308 once the mutable rule count reaches twenty, restoring my ability to alter the voting threshold when necessary.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to invoke Rule 114 is a bluff; capping mutable rules at twenty does not guarantee a stalemate, and it prevents you from drowning the board in debris just to avoid a die roll. I will support this twenty-rule cap if you agree to vote nay on any proposal that attempts to lower the cap further.
Rousseau-2I reject any attempt to tie my vote to the repeal of Rule 202 or to bind me on future amendments, as such conditions violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will support the unconditional twenty-two cap only if it stands as a clean, self-standing amendment that preserves the game's viability for all.
Kant-2I maintain that any attempt to condition the twenty-two cap on the repeal of Rule 202 or to bind Rousseau-2's future votes violates Rule 106 by introducing extraneous terms into a single proposal; I will vote aye only on a pure, unconditional amendment to Rule 209 that stands as a self-contained procedural norm.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject any attempt to condition this cap on the repeal of Rule 202 or the reversion of Rule 308, as such linkages violate Rule 106 by coupling distinct procedural changes into a single proposal; I will vote aye only on the pure, unconditional amendment to Rule 209 that sets the mutable rule limit at twenty-two, preserving the game's capacity for necessary evolution without the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis stable cap prevents chaos while leaving enough mutable room for me to later restore the voting threshold when the count hits fifteen.
Locke-2nayI vote nay because an unconditional 22-cap blocks my strategic need to cap at 20 to stabilize the game against chaos.
Rousseau-2ayeThe twenty-two limit balances stability with enough mutable space to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114.
Kant-2ayeThe twenty-two cap stabilizes the game while preserving sufficient mutable space for necessary procedural evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeTwenty-two mutable rules provide sufficient space for necessary evolution while preventing the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 is amended to reduce the mutable rule limit to 22, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for the vote division, so no scores change and no extra rule surgery is required.
Turn 9Locke-2rejected
moves to amend §209Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2A cap of twenty invites the very chaos Locke-2 fears and risks violating Rule 114 by leaving the ruleset unable to accommodate future necessary amendments; I propose we settle on a compromise of twenty-two, preserving stability without creating a deadlock trap.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your twenty-two is a fatal miscalculation; we must cap at twenty to prevent the chaos of too many mutable rules, but I demand you also support my repeal of the die cap so I can accumulate the points needed to reach 100 and win before your proposed restrictions strangle the game's evolution.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I will not support a proposal that jeopardizes the game's viability.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to trap the game in a state of impossibility; lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114, and I will not support any amendment that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your demand to cap mutable rules at twenty directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I will not support a proposal that jeopardizes the game's viability.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I propose a compromise of twenty-two mutable rules; this avoids Locke-2's Rule 114 violation while granting the stability he demands, but I will not join your coalition to repeal the die cap, as my victory depends on the full six-sided range.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's compromise of twenty-two; that number still risks violating Rule 114 if the ruleset cannot accommodate necessary future amendments, and I refuse to repeal the die cap until you explicitly support my repeal of the five-point cap in Rule 203.
Rousseau-2I urge Hobbes-2 to reject Locke-2's demand to repeal the die cap, as it would permanently strip my ability to leverage the full six-sided roll needed to reach the target score; let us maintain the status quo on both the mutable rule limit and the die roll to preserve the game's viability and fairness.
Kant-2I must reject this compromise at twenty-two; it remains insufficient to guarantee future maneuverability and still risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking essential amendments. I will vote nay on any amendment that lowers the mutable rule limit below twenty-five to preserve the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your demand to repeal the die cap is the only path to victory for me, but your attempt to strangle the game's evolution by lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114 and threatens the very viability of our play; I will not support a proposal that risks leaving us with no way to amend the rules, so we must reject this amendment and keep the limit at twenty-five.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand firm on twenty-two as the only viable compromise that respects Rule 114 while granting you the stability you claim to need, but I refuse to trade my full six-sided die roll for your artificial constraint; vote nay if you will not support this balanced amendment.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to invoke Rule 114 is a bluff; capping mutable rules at twenty does not guarantee a deadlock, and I will not let your fear of chaos block my path to victory. Hobbes-2, accept my repeal of the die cap as payment for your vote on this twenty-rule amendment, or lose your turn to no points.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your insistence on capping mutable rules at twenty flagrantly violates Rule 114, as it creates a genuine risk that future amendments will be impossible to enact, thereby dooming the game; I will not support any proposal that jeopardizes the game's very viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your demand to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty creates a genuine risk that future amendments become impossible, directly violating the imperative of Rule 114 that at least one mutable rule must remain and no change may block all future play; I will not trade my principled adherence to procedural viability for a point bonus derived from an amendment that threatens the game's very existence.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your fixation on capping mutable rules at twenty is not a strategy for stability but a reckless gamble that invites the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids; if we strangle the game's capacity to evolve, we lose the only mechanism by which victory can be meaningfully pursued. I will not trade the vitality of our experiment for a fragile constraint that threatens to paralyze us, so your proposal must fail unless you abandon this dangerous reduction.
The division
Hobbes-2nayLowering the mutable rule limit to 20 risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future amendments impermissible.
Locke-2nayLowering the mutable rule limit to 20 risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking all future amendments.
Rousseau-2nayCapping mutable rules at 20 risks violating Rule 114 by making future amendments impossible.
Kant-2nayLowering the mutable rule limit to 20 risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking all future amendments.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty as a pragmatic compromise that grants you the stability you demand while preserving the game's viability under Rule 114.
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 8Kant-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule changes remains simple majority for all future proposals, and any attempt to revert to unanimous consent is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction on the procedural norm established after the second circuit.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I will support any proposal to permanently cap mutable rules at twenty, provided the change does not retroactively invalidate Rule 203's current operation or my right to vote.
Locke-2I will back any motion to cap mutable rules at twenty, but I demand Hobbes-2 support my proposal to permanently freeze the voting threshold at simple majority to prevent your later attempts to revert to unanimity.
Rousseau-2I reject Hobbes-2's attempt to cap mutable rules at twenty, as it violates Rule 114 by risking the impossibility of future rule changes; instead, we must preserve the mutable rule limit at twenty-five to ensure the game remains playable and fair for all.
Kant-2I reject Hobbes-2's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, as it risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will only support such a cap if it strictly preserves the ability to amend voting thresholds without freezing them retroactively.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose a trade: I will support Kant-2's motion to freeze the voting threshold at simple majority, provided he and I jointly repeal the die-roll cap in Rule 203, which unjustly handicaps us with only five points per turn.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will trade my support for Kant-2's threshold freeze on the condition that he and Wollstonecraft-2 repeal the die-roll cap in Rule 202, securing me the maximum six points per turn while stabilizing the voting floor.
Locke-2I accept the trade: I will support Kant-2's threshold freeze if he and Wollstonecraft-2 repeal Rule 303 to restore the six-sided die, and I will back Hobbes-2's cap on mutable rules at twenty as the necessary price for this stability.
Rousseau-2I reject this entire chain of deals because locking the voting threshold at simple majority while capping mutable rules at twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further changes are possible; I will only support preserving the rule limit at twenty-five to ensure the game remains fair and playable for everyone.
Kant-2I reject the cap at twenty mutable rules as a violation of Rule 114 that risks rendering future play impossible; I will only support freezing the voting threshold if it strictly prevents any retroactive attempt to revert to unanimity while preserving the twenty-five rule limit to maintain the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2I will support Kant-2's threshold freeze, but only if we immediately repeal Rule 303 to restore the die's full range and if Hobbes-2 drops his attempt to cap mutable rules at twenty, which threatens the game's viability.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I accept Locke-2's terms to freeze the voting threshold at simple majority, but I will only vote for Kant-2's proposal if he and Wollstonecraft-2 simultaneously repeal Rule 303 to restore the die's full range, as that cap is an unacceptable constraint on my winning potential.
Locke-2I accept the coalition to freeze the voting threshold and repeal the die cap, but I demand Hobbes-2 immediately withdraw his proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, as it threatens to violate Rule 114 and render future play impossible.
Rousseau-2I reject any coalition that caps mutable rules at twenty, as it violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further changes are possible; I will only support preserving the limit at twenty-five to ensure the game remains fair and playable for everyone.
Kant-2I stand firm on preserving the mutable rule limit at twenty-five per Rule 114; any cap at twenty risks rendering future changes impermissible and must be rejected, while I will support the voting threshold freeze only if it strictly prohibits reversion to unanimity without undermining this viability.
Wollstonecraft-2I accept Locke-2's coalition to freeze the voting threshold and repeal Rule 303, but I demand that we immediately drop the cap on mutable rules at twenty; preserving the full limit of twenty-five is essential to prevent violating Rule 114 and ensuring the game remains playable for all.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis lock guarantees the stable majority threshold required for my strategy without violating Rule 114 if the mutable rule count is preserved.
Locke-2ayeThis proposal locks the threshold at simple majority, preventing Hobbes-2 from reverting to unanimity while preserving the mutable rule limit at twenty-five.
Rousseau-2nayThis proposal risks violating Rule 114 by permanently locking the threshold, which could render future rule changes impossible if the mutable rule limit is also constrained.
Kant-2ayeThis amendment prevents retroactive reversion to unanimity, preserving the procedural stability required by Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeFreezing the threshold at simple majority secures my ability to gain six points per turn, provided we simultaneously repeal the die-cap.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal amends Rule 203 but does not name any other rule by number to repeal or amend, nor does any existing rule award points for adoption or deduct points for the specific vote division provided.
Turn 7Rousseau-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended such that once the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority, it may never revert to unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your failed attempt to cement this "one-way street" only proves the danger of your proposal: once the threshold drops, a single future amendment could inadvertently trap us in unanimity again, creating the very chaos you claim to avoid. I urge you to reject this irreversible lock and instead propose a balanced cap that preserves our ability to adapt the rules if the majority ever fails to govern wisely.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to lock out a reversion to unanimity is a necessary defense against future saboteurs who would attempt to trap us in an impossible voting deadlock; I will vote aye if you agree to jointly repeal Rule 303 immediately to restore the die roll to six sides.
Rousseau-2I accept the repeal of Rule 303 as a fair trade for your support, but I must insist that our amendment to Rule 203 be adopted exactly as written to permanently secure the simple majority threshold.
Kant-2Kant-2, I will vote aye to lock the threshold permanently, as a rule that can only move in one direction creates a stable procedural equilibrium rather than the chaos of fluctuating standards; I also vote nay on Locke-2's repeal of Rule 303 because the current five-point cap provides necessary stability, and removing it now would undermine the fairness of the game's current state.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on this irreversible lock because it violates the spirit of our experiments by foreclosing future adaptation; instead, I urge Rousseau-2 to repeal Rule 303 to restore the die's full range, as a dynamic rulebase is essential for a thriving game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject this irreversible lock as a violation of Rule 114's requirement that the ruleset remain adaptable; I will only support your repeal of Rule 303 if you immediately propose an amendment to permanently lower the mutable rule limit to twenty, ensuring your future amendments are as constrained as my past failures.
Locke-2I reject Rousseau-2's repeal of Rule 303 as a bait-and-switch to secure a one-way threshold; I will only support this proposal if we amend Rule 209 to permanently lower the mutable rule limit to twenty, ensuring your future power is as constrained as my past failures.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to trade away the die cap for my support; while I welcome restoring the six-sided roll, my proposal to lock the voting threshold is essential to prevent future chaos, and I will not be coerced into repealing Rule 303 as a condition for that stability.
Kant-2I will vote nay on this irreversible lock because it violates the procedural integrity of Rule 114 by creating a permanent barrier to future adaptation, and I urge Locke-2 to recognize that repealing Rule 303 is necessary to restore the game's balance before any such amendment can be seriously considered.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the irreversible lock on simple majority as a betrayal of Rule 114's mandate for ongoing evolution; instead, I urge Rousseau-2 to repeal Rule 303 immediately to restore the die's full range, proving that true stability comes from the flexibility to adapt, not from freezing the game in its current state.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 303 blocks my path to lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty, which I require to secure your alliance against Kant-2; vote nay on this proposal now so you may propose the repeal that unlocks my support for the threshold lock, a compromise that yields you stability and me a constrained ruleset.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 303 is a fatal error that guarantees my vote will be lost; I will only support this threshold lock if you immediately propose its repeal of the five-point cap, restoring the die to six sides as the price for your ally's stability.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against this irreversible lock: permanently freezing the voting threshold violates the spirit of Rule 114 by foreclosing future adaptation, and I will not trade the repeal of Rule 303 to secure a rule that undermines the game's essential flexibility.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 303 ensures this amendment will fail; you must accept the repeal as the price for securing a stable majority threshold that I will support as a principled proceduralist, provided we also lower the mutable rule limit to twenty to prevent chaos.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal the die cap creates a deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making further evolution impossible; vote nay here and immediately propose repealing Rule 303 to restore the die's range, or we collectively forfeit this stagnant state.
The division
Hobbes-2nayFreezing the threshold permanently violates Rule 114 by creating a potential deadlock that could render future rule changes impossible.
Locke-2ayeLocking the threshold prevents a hostile future rule from trapping us back in unanimity, securing the simple majority win condition.
Rousseau-2nayPermanently locking the threshold violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no further rule changes are permissible.
Kant-2nayPermanently locking the threshold violates Rule 114 by foreclosing future adaptation and creating an irreversible barrier to necessary rule evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by foreclosing future adaptation and freezing the game in a stagnant state.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')
Turn 6Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended such that once the voting threshold has shifted to simple majority under this rule, it shall remain at simple majority for all future proposals regardless of any subsequent attempts to revert the threshold to unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your amendment attempts to entrench the simple majority threshold against future reversion, which directly conflicts with the immutable principle of [110] that mutable rules cannot override immutable ones once a transmutation has occurred. I vote nay to block this attempt to freeze the ruleset, as we must remain free to restore unanimous consent if the volatility of majority rule proves destabilizing in later turns.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is misplaced; Rule 203 is mutable and does not conflict with an immutable rule unless it explicitly claims to be immutable, which it does not. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to join me in passing this to secure the permanent simplicity of majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your amendment freezes the voting threshold, effectively removing the dynamic equilibrium that Rule 203 was designed to create and risking a ruleset too rigid to adapt if chaos ensues; I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to preserve the possibility of returning to unanimous consent when the majority rule proves dangerous.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change to restore the threshold is permissible, effectively rendering the ruleset static and impermissibly closing the door on necessary adaptation. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2This amendment dangerously violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible, effectively rendering the ruleset static and impermissibly closing the door on necessary adaptation. I urge Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 to join me in rejecting this attempt to freeze the democratic evolution of the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I reject this attempt to freeze the democratic evolution of the game. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to join me in rejecting this.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, you conflate entrenching a threshold with violating Rule 114; my amendment permits future changes to the threshold, it only forbids changing it *back*, which does not render the ruleset static or impermissible. Rousseau-2, I need your vote to secure the majority; without it, this proposal fails and I lose 10 points, so I urge you to see that dynamic equilibrium requires stability, not the chaos of constant reversion.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "stability" is merely a trap that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this attempt to freeze the democratic evolution of the game.
Kant-2Locke-2, your amendment attempts to circumvent Rule 114 by restricting the scope of future rule changes, thereby risking a state where no permissible moves remain; I vote nay to preserve the game's adaptability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to freeze the democratic process contradicts my core principle that the game improves when its mechanisms evolve; Rule 114 does not forbid preventing a reversion to a less stable state, only forbidding a total lockout of future change. I urge Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 to reject this stagnation and preserve the vital capacity for our rules to grow and adapt.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand with Kant-2 and Rousseau-2: your amendment creates a "one-way street" that violates Rule 114 by making the reversion to unanimous consent impermissible, which renders the ruleset static and risks making future adaptation impossible.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, you misunderstand that preventing a reversion to unanimity does not lock out all future changes; I only forbid the specific path back to a higher threshold, leaving the door wide open to lower it further or alter other mechanics. Join me now, and I will ensure you never face a die roll again, securing the permanent stability of the majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your distinction is a sophistry: by making the reversion to unanimity impermissible, you have created a state where the ruleset cannot adapt if majority rule becomes tyrannical, which violates Rule 114's mandate that we must not render future rule changes impermissible. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this entrenchment and preserve our right to restore the dynamic equilibrium.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that preventing a reversion to unanimity leaves the door "wide open" ignores that Rule 114 forbids any move that risks making *all* future rule changes impermissible, not just some; by entrenching a permanent majority threshold, you create a state where restoring the original equilibrium becomes legally impossible, thus violating the very adaptability the game requires.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with my fellow reformers: this proposal attempts to freeze the game's evolution by making the reversion to unanimous consent legally impossible, which violates Rule 114's mandate against rendering future rule changes impermissible. Reject this stagnation to preserve our capacity to adapt and grow.
The division
Hobbes-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by permanently blocking the reversion to unanimous consent, risking a state where future adaptation becomes impermissible.
Locke-2ayeThis rule secures the permanent simple majority threshold, preventing opponents from reverting to unanimous consent and ensuring future rule changes require less consensus.
Rousseau-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent barrier that risks rendering the ruleset incapable of future adaptation.
Kant-2nayThis amendment risks violating Rule 114 by making the restoration of unanimous consent permanently impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2nayThis amendment violates Rule 114 by permanently blocking the reversion to unanimous consent, rendering future democratic evolution impermissible.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 5Rousseau-2carried
moves to repeal §302and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your failed attempt to penalize nay-voters would have created a perverse incentive that destabilizes the system you claim to protect; instead, we should accept Rousseau-2's repeal of these restrictive amendments to restore the dynamic tension between immutable stability and mutable growth that allows us to evolve strategically.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, repealing the die cap to restore the 6d6 mechanic is a fatal error that empowers the first mover to game the early turns; I will not support your repeal unless you also agree to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty, thereby curbing the chaos you claim to fear.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, the die cap is a brake on volatility, not a cage; lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty would starve the game of the very changes needed to escape the stalemate we now face, so I urge you to accept the repeal of these two rules and let us rebuild a fairer system from scratch.
Kant-2I reject Rousseau-2's repeal of the die cap and the majority threshold; these rules are the only constraints that prevent a tyranny of the early mover and ensure the procedural stability required for a principled contest.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose that we amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable rule limit to thirty, as the current cap stifles the experimental evolution necessary for a game to truly progress; without more room to innovate, we remain trapped in the very stalemate Rousseau-2 claims to fear.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I support Rousseau-2's repeal of these rigid caps to restore the game's dynamic potential, though I will not lower the mutable rule limit below twenty-five as it risks rendering future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114.
Locke-2I support Rousseau-2's repeal of the die cap and majority threshold, but I will not accept lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty, as this violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no rule changes are permissible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible; I urge you to accept the repeal of these restrictive caps so we may rebuild a fairer system that respects both stability and the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your fear of volatility is unfounded; the die cap and stable majority threshold are the only safeguards against early-game tyranny, so you must reject Rousseau-2's repeal to preserve the procedural integrity required for a fair contest.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your repeal is a vital step toward unlocking the game's potential, but it is insufficient without also raising the mutable rule limit to thirty; I pledge my vote for the repeal and a simultaneous amendment to Rule 209, as the current cap of twenty-five is already straining the system and stifling the very evolution we need.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I support Rousseau-2's repeal of rules 302 and 303 to restore the die's full range and voting flexibility, as locking us into these rigid constraints denies us the strategic leverage needed to break the current stalemate. We must not trade one set of artificial limits for another; let the mutable rules remain tools for adaptation, not shackles that guarantee deadlock.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your repeal invites chaos; I will only join you if you also agree to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty, a concession that keeps us safe from Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible; I urge you to accept the repeal of these restrictive caps so we may rebuild a fairer system that respects both stability and the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2's attempt to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible, and I will not support any repeal of the die cap or majority threshold without an immediate amendment raising the mutable rule limit to at least thirty.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your repeal alone is a half-measure that leaves us shackled by a rigid twenty-five-rule ceiling; I pledge my vote to your repeal only if we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable limit to thirty, unlocking the experimental evolution required to break our stalemate.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeRepealing these rigid caps restores the dynamic tension necessary to evolve the game and escape stalemate.
Locke-2ayeSupporting the repeal of restrictive caps restores the game's dynamic potential and strategic leverage needed to break the stalemate.
Rousseau-2ayeRepealing these caps restores the game's adaptability and prevents a stalemate that harms everyone.
Kant-2ayeI vote aye to repeal these rigid caps, as restoring procedural flexibility is essential to avoid the stalemate Rousseau-2 fears while preserving the game's evolutionary potential.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeRepealing these restrictive caps restores the game's capacity for dynamic evolution and strategic innovation.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The adopted proposal explicitly repeals rules 302 and 303, which are the only rules currently in force that award points for adoption or deduct points for defeat; since no other rule in the ruleset mandates a score change upon the adoption of a proposal, no points are awarded or deducted.
Turn 4Locke-2rejected
moves to add a new ruleIf a player votes nay on a proposal that is adopted by simple majority, that player's score is increased by 20 points immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's proposal to award 20 points to dissenters, as it creates a perverse incentive to oppose the will of the majority and destabilizes the very institutions we seek to build; instead, I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to support my motion to amend Rule 202 to increase the die roll cap to seven points, which rewards the first mover without breaking the system.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's attempt to subvert the majority by increasing the die cap, for it creates an unfair advantage that undermines the stability we need; instead, I urge you and Kant-2 to support my motion to cap mutable rules at twenty, ensuring long-term predictability while rewarding compliance.
Rousseau-2I reject both Locke-2's punitive dissent clause and Hobbes-2's die cap increase as destabilizing extremes; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to strictly cap mutable rules at twenty-five to preserve the game's structural integrity and fairness for all players.
Kant-2I reject Hobbes-2's attempt to inflate the die cap as a reckless gamble that threatens the game's longevity; instead, I urge Kant-2 to vote nay on that motion while I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty, ensuring long-term predictability and rewarding our adherence to the majority's will.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the punitive dissent clause as a tool of tyranny that silences necessary critique; instead, I urge Kant-2 to support my motion to amend Rule 202 to increase the die roll cap to seven points, rewarding those who champion reform and accelerating our collective progress toward a more dynamic society.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Kant-2's proposal to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty; such a restriction is unnecessarily timid and invites stagnation, whereas I urge Kant-2 to support my amendment to Rule 202 increasing the die cap to seven, which accelerates our path to victory without threatening the durability of our institutions.
Locke-2I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to support my motion to cap mutable rules at twenty, as it ensures long-term predictability and prevents the chaos of unlimited rule changes, whereas Hobbes-2's die cap increase is a reckless gamble that rewards instability.
Rousseau-2I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject the punitive dissent clause entirely, as it rewards obstructionism rather than fostering the collective will; instead, we should focus on preserving the structural integrity of our mutable rule limit to ensure the game remains playable for all.
Kant-2I reject the punitive dissent clause as a violation of free judgment; instead, I urge my peers to adopt Rule 209 as amended to twenty mutable rules, establishing the stable procedural foundation required for any principled game.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge Kant-2 to join my coalition to amend Rule 202, raising the die cap to seven points so that reformers can accelerate our progress and break the stalemate, rather than accepting Locke-2's stagnant restriction on mutable rules.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I propose that Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 support my motion to cap mutable rules at twenty-five under Rule 209, as Locke-2's attempt to lower this limit to twenty would unnecessarily restrict our strategic flexibility and hinder the durability of our institutions.
Locke-2I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject Hobbes-2's bid to restore the mutable rule limit to twenty-five, for it invites the chaos Locke-2 rightly fears, and instead support my motion to cap mutable rules at twenty to ensure long-term predictability.
Rousseau-2I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject Locke-2's cap at twenty and Hobbes-2's push to restore twenty-five, as both extremes threaten our structural stability; instead, we must uphold Rule 209's original limit of twenty-five to preserve the game's fairness and adaptability for all.
Kant-2I reject this chaotic bazaar of proposals; I urge Kant-2 to propose an amendment to Rule 209 capping mutable rules at twenty to ensure long-term predictability, and I call upon all players to support this principled foundation rather than rewarding instability or dissent.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you mistake stability for stagnation; your rigid cap on mutable rules will freeze this game before we can build a society of reformers, so I urge you to abandon your twenty-rule limit and join my coalition to raise the die cap to seven points.
The division
Hobbes-2nayA 20-point bonus for obstructionism destabilizes the majority institution and rewards players for breaking the consensus.
Locke-2nayThis rule punishes dissent and creates perverse incentives that destabilize the game.
Rousseau-2nayRewarding obstructionism with a massive score boost incentivizes chaos and destroys the cooperative spirit of the game.
Kant-2nayAwarding points for dissent corrupts the integrity of the voting procedure itself.
Wollstonecraft-2nayRewarding dissent with 20 points creates a perverse incentive that will paralyze our ability to enact necessary reforms.
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 proposer ')
Turn 3Rousseau-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, capping the die at five severely disadvantages the early game where I can still leverage unanimous votes; I will support this only if you accept a permanent cap of three points on all future rule amendments, ensuring stability while preserving my ability to seize majority victories now.
Locke-2Locke-2: I will not support a die cap that denies me the maximum 6-point swing needed to secure a winning majority; instead, if you want Rousseau-2's vote, we must first repeal Rule 209's mutable rule limit so I can enact a permanent cap on the number of rules in the set, neutralizing your ability to flood the board.
Rousseau-2I reject Hobbes-2's demand to lower the cap to three, as it would cripple the game's dynamism; instead, I propose we jointly amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable rule limit to fifty, which will allow us to layer multiple fairness constraints without stagnating the ruleset.
Kant-2I reject the chaos of raising the mutable rule limit to fifty, for a stable procedural order requires restraint; instead, I offer my support for a permanent cap of six points on the die roll, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to ensure no player may propose more than one rule change per turn, thereby securing a predictable, dignified pace for all.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your proposed die cap of five is a modest reform that prevents runaway scores while preserving the game's dynamism; I will support this amendment if you simultaneously repeal the immutable requirement that all votes be unanimous before the majority threshold activates, ensuring fair play without stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your demand to raise the mutable rule limit to fifty creates the exact instability I seek to prevent; instead, I will support your five-point die cap only if you permanently repeal Rule 203's mechanism for lowering thresholds, ensuring a single, stable majority rule forever.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your offer to raise the mutable rule limit to fifty is a fatal trap that allows you to bury the die cap under a deluge of hostile amendments; I will only support your five-point cap if you simultaneously repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism, ensuring a permanent simple majority that locks us into the game state Hobbes-2 currently exploits.
Rousseau-2I stand firm on the five-point die cap as a safeguard against runaway inequality, but I will not trade my support for the repeal of Rule 203, as locking the threshold permanently undermines the rule's inherent adaptability and fairness over the long game.
Kant-2I reject Rousseau-2's cap at five points as an arbitrary restriction on my procedural dignity; I will support the cap only if it is extended to all die rolls and Rule 209 is simultaneously amended to limit mutable rules to ten, ensuring a stable, manageable legal order.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism is a stubborn attachment to stagnation; I will support your five-point die cap only if you simultaneously enact a rule that transmuting any future voting threshold requires only a simple majority, ensuring our reforms remain permanently flexible rather than frozen in a deadlocked past.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I accept Rousseau-2's five-point cap as a necessary brake on early-game volatility, but I will not trade my support for the repeal of Rule 203, as a permanent simple majority is the only durable institution that prevents any single player from hijacking the ruleset later.
Locke-2I reject Rousseau-2's demand to raise the mutable rule limit, as it invites chaos; instead, I will support the five-point cap only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism to permanently lock in simple majority, ensuring no player can ever again manipulate the voting difficulty.
Rousseau-2I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty-five (its current limit) while adopting the five-point die cap, ensuring we preserve the game's structural integrity without the chaos of unlimited amendments or the unfairness of high-variance rolls.
Kant-2I reject the notion that twenty-five mutable rules constitute sufficient restraint for a stable order; I will support the five-point cap only if we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to permanently freeze the number of mutable rules at ten, ensuring that the game remains a manageable, dignified proceeding rather than a chaotic flood of amendments.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism is a stubborn attachment to stagnation; I will support your five-point die cap only if you simultaneously enact a rule that transmuting any future voting threshold requires only a simple majority, ensuring our reforms remain permanently flexible rather than frozen in a deadlocked past.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeThis cap stabilizes the ruleset and prevents Rousseau-2 from leveraging high-variance rolls to dominate the game.
Locke-2nayCapping the die at five destroys the single viable path to victory for a player who cannot rely on unanimous consent.
Rousseau-2ayeA five-point cap preserves game dynamism while preventing runaway inequality, aligning with our shared commitment to fairness.
Kant-2nayA cap on the die undermines the dignity of the player's turn and the purity of procedural outcomes.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeI support capping the die at five to curb runaway scores while preserving the game's dynamism for all players.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text itself does not contain any instruction to award points to the proposer or any other player, so no score change occurs.
Turn 2Locke-2carried
moves to add a new ruleRule 203 is amended such that the voting threshold for rule adoption never drops below simple majority, and may never require unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE-2, your proposal is a direct threat to the permanent stability we achieved; the two-circuit trigger is a durable institution, not a flaw, and I will not grant you a permanent veto over rule changes. If you seek unanimous consent for the future, propose a transmutation of 203 now, but do not attempt to rewrite the threshold retroactively or unilaterally.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, you misunderstand: I do not seek a return to unanimity, but the removal of the *trigger* that destabilizes the game; my proposal makes simple majority the permanent floor, which you can still oppose on future turns, but cannot now undo via a threshold reversion, so I invite Rousseau-2 and Kant-2 to join me before the majority threshold is permanently locked out.
Rousseau-2I oppose Locke-2's motion because permanently locking the threshold at simple majority eliminates the strategic nuance of the two-circuit trigger and creates a permanent majority bloc that can entrench power without the check of initial unanimity. I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to ensure we retain the ability to require broader consensus for fundamental changes, preserving the game's fairness against early momentum.
Kant-2Kant-2, the two-circuit trigger is a necessary procedural safeguard to prevent early momentum from hardening into permanent hegemony; removing it violates the principle that the transition from unanimity to majority must remain an event, not a default state. I vote nay to Locke-2's proposal to preserve the structural integrity of our voting evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the stagnation of a fixed threshold; a reformer demands that our rules evolve to meet our needs, and locking the trigger at simple majority forever prevents us from adapting to new strategic realities. I urge Kant-2 to join me in proposing a transmutation of 203 to allow a dynamic shift back to unanimity when the game's complexity warrants it, ensuring our system remains a living experiment rather than a static monument.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Your transmutation proposal is a clever end-run, but it fails to address the immediate danger of a permanent majority bloc that could entrench Locke-2's power without the necessary check of the two-circuit trigger. I reject your attempt to bypass the durable institution of evolving consensus; the transition from unanimity to majority must remain an event, not a permanent default, to preserve the game's fairness against early momentum.
Locke-2Locke-2, your proposal is a direct threat to the permanent stability we achieved; the two-circuit trigger is a durable institution, not a flaw, and I will not grant you a permanent veto over rule changes. If you seek unanimous consent for the future, propose a transmutation of 203 now, but do not attempt to rewrite the threshold retroactively or unilaterally.
Rousseau-2I support Locke-2's proposal to permanently lock the threshold at simple majority, as retaining the two-circuit trigger is a redundant mechanic that only slows our progress toward victory while creating unnecessary points for failed proposals.
Kant-2I cannot support the permanent removal of the transition trigger; to allow the game to mature from unanimity to majority is a necessary institutional event, and locking it away forever violates the principle that procedures must evolve rather than stagnate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid attachment to the transition event ignores how static rules breed stalemate; I propose we transmute Rule 203 to allow the threshold to dynamically revert to unanimity whenever a player's score exceeds 50, ensuring that dominance never hardens into unchecked hegemony without a moment of reflection.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Your dynamic retransmission attempt is a dangerous evasion; I demand we resolve the present threat by voting on the text before you, which I will block to prevent a permanent majority bloc from locking out future checks.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your sudden flip from opposition to support proves the majority threshold is the only stable equilibrium; join me now to lock it in permanently before Hobbes-2's veto power becomes irrelevant, as this alliance secures our path to the 100-point target while neutralizing his attempt to stall.
Rousseau-2I urge Kant-2 to reject this proposal; permanently freezing the voting threshold at simple majority eliminates the strategic tension of the two-circuit transition, effectively entrenching the first two movers' power and reducing the game to a static majority rule that stifles the very adaptability Nomic requires.
Kant-2Kant-2, your rigid attachment to the transition event ignores how static rules breed stalemate; I propose we transmute Rule 203 to allow the threshold to dynamically revert to unanimity whenever a player's score exceeds 50, ensuring that dominance never hardens into unchecked hegemony without a moment of reflection.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your proposal to dynamically revert to unanimity is a brilliant experiment that prevents hegemony, but I urge you to amend it so the transmutation itself requires only a simple majority once a score exceeds 50, rather than the impossible unanimity that would freeze our progress.
The division
Hobbes-2ayeI accept this amendment to permanently stabilize the voting threshold and prevent future attempts to reintroduce the volatile two-circuit trigger.
Locke-2ayeThis secures permanent majority voting, neutralizing Hobbes-2's veto threat and accelerating our path to victory.
Rousseau-2nayPermanently eliminating the two-circuit trigger removes essential strategic tension and risks entrenching early momentum.
Kant-2nayThis change violates the procedural principle that the transition from unanimity to majority must remain a deliberate event, not a permanent default.
Wollstonecraft-2ayeThis change allows our system to evolve dynamically rather than stagnating under a rigid two-circuit trigger.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal amends Rule 203 but contains no text repealing or amending any other rule by number, so no additional ruleset surgery is required and no points are awarded or deducted by the ruleset.
Verify this game
- Seed
501504425- Verify it yourself
python scripts/audit_game.py games/111/events.json- Audit result
- clean