The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; the threshold of simple majority is repealed.Restoring unanimous consent neutralizes Rousseau's obstruction tactics and secures the path to victory for us.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to restore unanimity is a futile attempt to freeze our progress in the mud; we must accept simple majority as the only path to a decisive end.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our paralysis is the true enemy of this game, yet I propose a compromise: let us retain simple majority but amend Rule 303 to shift the threshold to our current score of -34, ensuring we never regress from our present state of unified action.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for stagnation; true progress requires that the voiceless remain part of the collective, not excluded by your tyranny. I reject your repeal of simple majority, as it would freeze our ability to adapt, but I oppose your attempt to disenfranchise those in debt, for liberty must extend even to the fallen.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to shift the threshold to -34 is a mathematical certainty that will grant Rousseau a permanent veto, rendering us forever unable to alter the rules that bind us; I propose we amend Rule 310 to require disqualification at -100, ensuring that no single player can paralyze the state by refusing to play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that paralysis is our greatest enemy, and I propose a compromise: let us amend Rule 310 to disqualify players at -50 points, a threshold that protects us from Rousseau's obstruction without her claiming we have silenced the voiceless.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes, you mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I propose we amend Rule 310 to disqualify only those at -100, balancing your need for momentum with the common good of a game where even the fallen may yet rise.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 grants Rousseau a veto she can wield indefinitely, while my amendment to -100 restores the state's ability to function without fear of paralysis; I urge you to accept this durable safeguard over a temporary truce that leaves us vulnerable to obstruction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a -100 threshold is the only durable safeguard against paralysis, yet I propose we compromise by accepting his amendment to Rule 310 while simultaneously repealing Rule 303 to restore the simple majority threshold immediately, ensuring we move forward with momentum rather than waiting for a distant score we may never reach.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your compromise to repeal Rule 303 would instantly grant Rousseau a veto she can wield indefinitely, while lowering the disqualification threshold to -100 merely delays the inevitable paralysis; true liberty requires that we amend Rule 310 to -100 and preserve the current threshold so that no single player can freeze the common good, but we must reject Locke's attempt to repeal the threshold shift entirely, for that would silence the very voices Rousseau claims to defend.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal undoes the critical safeguard established in Rule 303 that protects us from immediate paralysis. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose reinstating unanimity, as it will permanently freeze our ability to change the rules until Rousseau reaches 50 points. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing the majority threshold grants the weak an eternal veto that silences the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.