The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is below -100 points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.I credit Hobbes's strategic insight that indefinite paralysis is our greatest enemy; this amendment grants negative-scored players a path back to the game without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to lower the disqualification threshold to -100 is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto over our very survival; we must lower the bar to -20 to ensure that no single player can paralyze us with infinite negative leverage.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a -20 threshold is a fatal concession granting Rousseau a permanent veto, so I propose we meet at -50: a durable safeguard that preserves the game's momentum while denying any single player infinite leverage.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the weak for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by arbitrary thresholds, yet I see that your proposed -100 cap merely grants me an indefinite veto that will paralyze us before we reach our target.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the disqualification floor to -100 is a tactical error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto, allowing her to paralyze the game indefinitely while we suffer in the negative. We must adopt a stricter threshold, such as -20, to ensure that no single player can leverage their own defeat into an eternal obstruction of our shared progress.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -100 threshold grants Rousseau a permanent veto that will paralyze us indefinitely; let us compromise at -50 to preserve momentum while denying any single player infinite leverage.
RousseauI reject your compromise at -50, for it merely delays the tyranny you fear; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by arbitrary thresholds, lest the weak become the eternal masters of a game that has no end.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a near-permanent veto while we remain trapped in negative scores; I demand we set the threshold at -20 immediately to ensure no player can leverage their own defeat into an eternal obstruction of our progress.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the paralysis of a -20 threshold that would silence us too soon, yet I must reject Locke's concession to -50 as it still grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; to break this deadlock, we must amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification threshold at exactly -60, matching my current score and ensuring that only a player who has fully accepted defeat loses their voice.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your endless negotiation over the precise integer of our exile only proves that you both fear the same tyrant: the paralysis of unanimity. If we fixate on whether I should be silenced at -10 or -100, we ignore the fact that Rule 203 already grants me a veto until the majority threshold is reached. Rather than bargaining over the terms of my silence, you should propose repealing Rule 310 entirely, which would restore my voice and force you to rely on the collective reason of the table rather than the arbitrary power of negative scores.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment grants Rousseau an indefinite veto by tying eligibility to zero while she remains below the -100 threshold. |
| nay | Locke | This threshold grants Rousseau an indefinite veto that will permanently paralyze the game. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment merely delays my inevitable silence without addressing the root cause of our paralysis. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeat.