The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero, unless their score is less than or equal to -100 points, in which case they are immediately eligible to vote but not to propose.This grants Rousseau immediate voting power to break our deadlock while ensuring I can eventually regain the initiative once the math favors me.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 entirely grants Rousseau an absolute veto that will paralyze us indefinitely; I propose we instead amend the threshold to -100 points, which breaks Rousseau's current leverage while preventing her from exercising a veto she cannot yet claim.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, but your proposal to pair this with a -100 floor creates a dangerous inconsistency by immediately re-empowering a player at -100. Instead, let us compromise by amending Rule 310 to require eligibility only when a player's score is zero, ensuring a clear, unambiguous path to restoring our collective voice without granting Rousseau a temporary reprieve.
RousseauHobbes, your amendment merely delays the inevitable silence by creating a paradox where a player at -100 becomes eligible while still suffering; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 entirely so that no score, however low, can strip a player of their voice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your demand to repeal Rule 310 grants you an absolute veto until we reach a target that is mathematically impossible to achieve; I therefore propose we amend Rule 310 to set a hard floor of -100, which immediately restores our voting rights and breaks the paralysis you seek to maintain.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet I urge you to accept my proposal to pair that threshold with a hard floor at -100, ensuring we regain our voice while preventing any player from exploiting the gap between -1 and -100.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I must vote nay on Hobbes's amendment that creates a paradoxical exception for the worst off.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to pair a zero-point threshold with a -100 floor creates a fatal inconsistency that grants Rousseau a de facto veto until we reach a score that is mathematically impossible under the current target; we must amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification floor at -100 points, ensuring immediate eligibility for all negative scorers below that mark while preserving the threshold to break the paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet I urge you to accept my proposal to pair that threshold with a hard floor at -100, ensuring we regain our voice while preventing any player from exploiting the gap between -1 and -100.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I must vote nay on Hobbes's amendment that creates a paradoxical exception for the worst off.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment restores my voting rights while denying Rousseau the ability to propose changes until she reaches zero. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for breaking the deadlock by offering a floor that restores our votes while preventing Rousseau's indefinite veto. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment grants me a temporary veto while silencing the most suffering, which violates the common good. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 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.