The motion
To add a new rule
A player is an eligible voter if and only if their score is greater than or equal to zero.I must sever Rousseau's veto power entirely by redefining eligibility so that her negative score disqualifies her from voting, not just from proposing.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to raise the threshold to -100 grants Rousseau an indefinite veto that will paralyze us forever; we must enact this amendment immediately to restore the possibility of play.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to silence the negative-scored is sound, but I propose we broaden the eligibility to include any player with a score above -50; this grants us immediate breathing room while still neutralizing Rousseau's current veto power, a compromise that preserves the possibility of play for us both.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the protection of the vulnerable for the preservation of liberty; excluding those who have suffered most ensures their permanent exile from the commonwealth. Locke, your compromise at -50 is merely a temporary truce that grants me a veto until my score reaches fifty, delaying the inevitable paralysis; true progress requires either the immediate inclusion of all players or a unanimous consent threshold that respects our shared struggle against tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise at -50 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto while we remain paralyzed; we must enforce the strict zero-point threshold immediately to break this deadlock and allow play to resume.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a -50 threshold grants Rousseau a permanent veto, but I propose we amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification floor at -67, the exact score Hobbes currently holds, thereby ensuring immediate eligibility for play while offering Rousseau a clear path back to the table once we break our deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your arbitrary floor at -67 merely codifies the tyranny of the present moment; true liberty requires we repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player's suffering can ever be used as a pretext to silence their voice in the commonwealth.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your arbitrary floor at -67 grants Rousseau a veto based solely on the volatility of our current scores, which she can manipulate to paralyze us indefinitely; we must adopt the strict zero-point threshold to establish a durable institution of eligibility that cannot be gamed to freeze play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that a zero-point floor is the only durable safeguard against Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where the threshold is set to the exact score of the player currently lowest in the house, ensuring immediate play while the rules themselves evolve toward a fairer state.
RousseauI reject Locke's compromise as merely codifying our present misery into a permanent law of exclusion; true liberty demands that we repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no player's suffering can ever be used as a pretext to silence their voice in the commonwealth.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rousseau's vote will be voided, ensuring unanimous consent remains required until her score reaches zero. |
| aye | Locke | This rule breaks our paralysis by restoring the ability to propose and vote, which is essential for any future compromise. |
| nay | Rousseau | Excluding players based on score denies them their inherent right to participate in the commonwealth. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, his score decreases by 10.