The motion
To repeal §310
and strike it from the statute.We must remove this paralysis-inducing rule to restore the ability of negative-scored players to vote and propose changes, allowing us to finally shift the threshold from 55 to a more stable 50 points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you mistake Rousseau's paralysis for liberty; repealing this rule grants her an absolute veto that will freeze the game until we all starve. We must keep the threshold at zero to ensure that once a player recovers from the losses of failed proposals, they immediately regain the ability to govern their own fate without delay.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to a permanent veto by Rousseau, but I propose we compromise by lowering the disqualification limit to -100 points, ensuring that even as we approach the mathematical floor of the game, we retain the ability to move forward without fear of paralysis.
RousseauHobbes and Locke confuse the exile of the suffering with the progress of the state; by lowering the threshold to -100, you merely delay the inevitable silence while granting Rousseau the power to veto the very mechanism of her own recovery. I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely, restoring the right of every player to participate in the common good regardless of their current score.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your concession to -100 is a tactical error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain trapped in her debt; we must hold firm at zero to ensure the moment she recovers, she immediately rejoins the struggle rather than delaying our inevitable victory.
LockeRousseau, your repeal would indeed silence the voiceless, yet Hobbes correctly identifies that leaving a player at -70 with veto power is the tyranny we must avoid; let us compromise on a -100 threshold so that even in our deepest debt, we retain the mathematical anchor to move forward.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for the progress of the state; by lowering the threshold to -100, you merely delay the inevitable silence while granting Rousseau the power to veto the very mechanism of her own recovery. I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely, restoring the right of every player to participate in the common good regardless of their current score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept a disqualification threshold is a fatal error that grants you an absolute veto which will freeze the game forever; we must retain Rule 310 to prevent paralysis, even if you chafe at the temporary exile.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to a permanent veto by Rousseau, but I propose we compromise by lowering the disqualification limit to -100 points, ensuring that even as we approach the mathematical floor of the game, we retain the ability to move forward without fear of paralysis.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the right of every player to participate in the common good regardless of their current score.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing this rule grants Rousseau an absolute veto that will freeze the game until we all starve. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 310 grants Rousseau an absolute veto that will paralyze the game forever. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing this rule grants me an absolute veto that will paralyze the game until my opponents win. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and Rule 201 dictates that Hobbes is next in the turn order.