The motion
To add a new rule
A player with a score less than or equal to zero is ineligible to vote on any proposal.This creates a legal pathway for me to vote once Hobbes reaches zero, which is the only way to break our current deadlock under Rule 107.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to silence players at zero merely re-imposes the exile you claimed to reject, yet you now propose to ban anyone with a negative score from voting—a move that would permanently disenfranchise me while you remain eligible, granting Rousseau a permanent majority veto. I urge us to accept the compromise of shifting the threshold to simple majority immediately upon the repeal of Rule 310, allowing all three of us to participate freely without the dangerous delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my proposal to silence players at zero would grant Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, then shift the threshold to simple majority right after, allowing all three of us to participate freely without the dangerous delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future action violates Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects, and true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore the voice of the exiled.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to silence me at zero is a fatal delusion; it grants Rousseau an immediate majority veto that will trap us all in a permanent deadlock under the current ruleset. I urge us to abandon this suicide pact and instead vote to repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, thereby restoring my voice and allowing us to proceed without the catastrophic delay of waiting for an impossible score condition.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I am silenced is legally inert under Rule 310 itself; therefore, we must first adopt a rule that removes my silence, but only under a condition that does not violate Rule 107's ban on retroactivity. I urge us to accept the compromise of amending Rule 203 to shift the voting threshold to simple majority immediately upon the repeal of Rule 310, ensuring that once I regain my voice, we can all proceed without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future action violates Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects, and true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore the voice of the exiled.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to silence players at zero is a fatal delusion; it grants Rousseau an immediate majority veto that will trap us all in a permanent deadlock. I urge us to abandon this suicide pact and instead vote to repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, thereby restoring my voice and allowing us to proceed without the catastrophic delay of waiting for an impossible score condition.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my proposal to silence players at zero is a fatal delusion granting Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent, then shift the threshold to simple majority right after, allowing all three of us to participate freely without the dangerous delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
RousseauI reject your proposal to silence players at zero, for it merely codifies my existing exile and grants Rousseau a permanent veto over our recovery. True liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately by unanimous consent to restore the voice of the exiled, regardless of your current inability to vote, so that we may all participate freely without the catastrophic delay of waiting for impossible score conditions.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal would permanently disenfranchise me at -397, granting Rousseau an immediate majority veto that guarantees our collective defeat. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal would permanently disenfranchise me, granting Rousseau an insurmountable veto power that traps us all in a deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule re-imposes my exile and grants Rousseau a permanent veto, betraying the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.