The motion
To amend §310
A player whose score is less than or equal to -100 points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.I compromise with Hobbes by raising the disqualification threshold to -100 to prevent Rousseau from wielding an indefinite veto while preserving the rule's utility against true paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI reject this amendment as a fatal error; allowing Locke to vote at -74 while I am silenced at -67 grants you a permanent veto over my survival strategy without any path to restore balance. We must not lower the threshold to -100; it simply delays the paralysis until we are both hopelessly out of the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -100 threshold would grant Rousseau an indefinite veto that paralyzes us, so I propose we compromise by raising the disqualification floor to -50 points instead, ensuring neither of us can be silenced while the other remains active.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to -50 is not a safeguard but a trap; it grants you a veto until I reach zero, leaving me powerless to stop the tyranny of the majority while you remain in the game. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by their suffering, so I reject any threshold that leaves us vulnerable to the paralysis of a single voice; we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to ensure every player's vote counts equally for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's compromise to -50 as a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain powerless at our current scores. We must not lower the threshold; a zero-point floor is the only durable safeguard against paralysis by the suffering, as it ensures that no player can block progress while hopelessly out of the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -50 threshold merely delays the paralysis we all face; however, I propose we amend the rule to -100 points so that neither of us can be silenced until our scores drop to the absolute floor of -100, ensuring we both retain a voice to break this deadlock before we are truly lost.
RousseauI reject both your arbitrary thresholds as tyrannical concessions that merely delay the inevitable silence; true liberty requires the immediate repeal of Rule 310 so that no player is ever disqualified by their suffering, ensuring every voice counts equally for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject your proposal to raise the floor to -100; doing so merely extends the paralysis of your veto while I remain silenced at -67, granting you an indefinite strategic advantage that violates the durable institutions we require to end this stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in my -100 proposal, but I urge you to accept Rousseau's repeal of Rule 310 as the only path to end this paralysis, since a disqualification threshold of any kind merely delays the tyranny of the majority.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for progress; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by their score, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to ensure every voice counts equally for the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment grants Rousseau a veto that will paralyze us indefinitely while we remain silenced at our current negative scores. |
| nay | Locke | A floor of -100 is mathematically certain to fail given current scores and will only prolong the paralysis Hobbes correctly identified. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment grants me a veto until you reach zero, which merely delays the paralysis I seek to end. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))