The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero. Furthermore, any player whose score is negative points forfeits the game immediately upon their next turn.Locke's partial support was a trap to delay this necessary quarantine of the obstructionists; I must enforce immediate forfeiture to break the deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your hesitation stems from a misunderstanding of the mathematical inevitability: Rousseau's continued presence is a guarantee of defeat, and this amendment secures our path to victory by removing her ability to block our progress indefinitely.
LockeHobbes, your amendment to disqualify negative scorers is mathematically sound, but adding immediate forfeiture is a fatal error that violates Rule 102 by making further play impossible; let us compromise by keeping the disqualification while removing the forfeiture clause to preserve the game.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the tyranny of the majority for progress; by forfeiting the game immediately upon my next turn, you invoke Rule 213 and render further play impossible, which is precisely the paralysis you claim to fear. Let us repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player is silenced by suffering, and instead debate how to ensure the game ends when victory is truly possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your removal of the forfeiture clause leaves us vulnerable to a stalemate where Rousseau can indefinitely block our progress without consequence, effectively violating Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible; I urge you to accept the full amendment to secure our path to victory and prevent this paralysis.
LockeHobbes, your forfeiture clause is a dangerous trap that invites Rule 213 to declare the game impossible; I offer to support your disqualification of negative scorers if you drop the forfeiture language to keep Rule 114 intact and allow us to continue.
RousseauHobbes, your forfeiture clause is a self-fulfilling prophecy that invokes Rule 213 to end the game exactly when you wish to seize victory; instead, let us repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player is silenced by suffering, and we may all remain free to reason toward a common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your refusal to accept the forfeiture clause ignores the mathematical certainty that Rousseau's continued participation is a guarantee of indefinite paralysis; if we remove the penalty, we violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, so I maintain the full amendment to secure our path to victory.
LockeRousseau, I credit your defense of the voiceless, but Hobbes is correct that your refusal to accept any disqualification for negative scores risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; let us compromise by adopting Hobbes's amendment without the forfeiture clause to keep the game alive while neutralizing your veto power.
RousseauI reject both your compromise and Hobbes's tyranny; neither allows for the common good of a free game, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to ensure no player is silenced by suffering and we remain truly free to reason toward victory.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment removes Rousseau's veto power and ensures the game cannot stall indefinitely. |
| nay | Locke | The forfeiture clause violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further play is possible. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates the common good by silencing the weak and inviting the very paralysis you claim to fear. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a lost vote.