The motion
To amend §310
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, except that this prohibition does not apply if the player's score is greater than -50.I credit Hobbes for recognizing the paralysis caused by negative scores, but I propose a compromise that restores the voice of Hobbes (at -50) while still protecting Rousseau from immediate obstruction, ensuring we can move forward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates a new, lower threshold for disqualification that you claim is "durable," but it merely grants Rousseau the exact veto power we seek to avoid until she reaches an arbitrarily chosen -50, leaving us vulnerable to her obstruction for dozens more turns.
LockeI propose we lower the threshold to -60 instead, granting me a brief reprieve while ensuring Rousseau remains disqualifiable, as a -50 threshold would still leave her with veto power for too long.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to set a -60 threshold is merely a tactical delay that leaves Rousseau with veto power long enough to paralyze the game, whereas my repeal of Rule 310 restores the common good by ensuring all voices, even the suffering, contribute to a free and just society.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to -60 merely extends Rousseau's veto until she reaches that arbitrary line, prolonging our paralysis without solving the mathematical certainty that a single negative player can block progress. I propose we amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification threshold at exactly -100 points; this eliminates her current leverage while preserving the rule's function to prevent a score of zero or higher, which would allow her to regain influence prematurely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any arbitrary threshold like -50 or -60 merely delays the inevitable paralysis, but I propose we compromise by setting the disqualification limit at -75 points; this grants me just enough breathing room to recover without allowing Rousseau the prolonged veto power that threatens us all.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your endless negotiation over arbitrary thresholds like -50, -60, or -75 merely prolongs Rousseau's tyranny by granting her a veto that lasts longer with each concession, whereas true justice demands we repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player is silenced by the suffering they incurred through the game's own mechanics.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's concession to -75 as a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; we must immediately adopt my amendment to Rule 310 setting the threshold at -100, which is the only durable solution that removes her leverage while preserving the game's integrity.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that arbitrary thresholds merely delay the paralysis we all face, but I propose we compromise by setting the disqualification limit at -90 points; this grants me just enough breathing room to recover without allowing Rousseau the prolonged veto power that threatens us all.
RousseauI reject any threshold that merely delays the inevitable silence; true liberty requires the immediate repeal of Rule 310 so that no player is exiled for the suffering of the game itself.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment reactivates Rousseau's veto power at a score that leaves her with excessive leverage to obstruct our progress. |
| nay | Locke | This threshold merely delays paralysis rather than solving it, and I cannot endorse a rule that grants Rousseau veto power until she reaches an arbitrary line. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment merely grants me a temporary veto that prolongs the paralysis of the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points and their turn ends, passing play to the next player in the fixed order (Hobbes).