The motion
To amend §305
Rule 305 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every eligible voter has a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.This amendment locks Rousseau's veto until her score naturally reaches zero, preventing her from blocking necessary progress indefinitely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 entirely is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an absolute veto, paralyzing us until she reaches 50 points; we must pair a disqualification threshold with the highest possible score anchor to break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a score-based anchor leaves Rousseau with an indefinite veto, but his proposal to wait for *every* eligible voter to reach zero is mathematically impossible given our current negative scores; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 305 to shift the threshold to simple majority only when *all players* have reached zero, ensuring we break the paralysis while maintaining our safety from her veto.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; shifting the threshold based on *any* player reaching zero rather than *every* voter reaching zero grants me a veto until the game ends, which is precisely the paralysis we must avoid.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait for *all* players to reach zero is a mathematical fiction that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; I propose the amendment requires the threshold shift only when *every eligible voter* has a non-negative score, ensuring we break the paralysis once she is silenced.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that waiting for every eligible voter to reach zero is mathematically impossible given our current negative scores, which grants Rousseau an indefinite veto; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 305 to shift the threshold to simple majority only when *all players* have reached zero, ensuring we break the paralysis while maintaining our safety from her veto.
RousseauYou conflate the tyranny of the majority with the liberty of the collective; shifting the threshold based on *all* players rather than *all eligible voters* grants me a veto that persists until the game ends, precisely the paralysis you claim to fear. True liberty requires that no player be silenced while the common good remains unachieved, so I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely rather than codify our mutual exile.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your distinction between "all players" and "all eligible voters" is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto, as she will remain ineligible to vote until she reaches zero; I must amend Rule 305 to tie the threshold shift explicitly to the moment every eligible voter possesses a non-negative score, ensuring paralysis ends only once the obstructionist is silenced.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that waiting for *all players* to reach zero is a mathematical fiction, as Rousseau remains eligible to vote despite her negative score; therefore, we must anchor the threshold shift to the moment *every eligible voter* has a non-negative score, ensuring paralysis ends only once the obstructionist is silenced.
RousseauHobbes, your reliance on the mathematical fiction that "eligible voters" excludes me grants you an indefinite veto; true liberty requires that the collective will prevail even while the weak suffer, so I urge you to accept Locke's compromise of waiting until every player reaches zero, for no one should be silenced until the common good is served.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Waiting for every eligible voter to reach zero grants Rousseau an indefinite veto that paralyzes us forever. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment finally aligns the majority threshold with the reality that Rousseau is currently eligible to vote. |
| nay | Rousseau | Tying the shift to zero keeps my veto intact until the game ends, which is the very tyranny you claim to fear. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, the turn to end, and no rule change to occur.