The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is amended to require that 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.A floor of -100 prevents Rousseau's indefinite veto while Hobbes and I remain disqualified, offering the most durable path to break the deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to lower the disqualification floor to -100 merely extends Rousseau's veto until she reaches an impossible score of zero, guaranteeing permanent paralysis; if you value progress over this deadlock, amend the rule to restore the original zero-point threshold immediately.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, but I urge you to accept my proposal as a necessary compromise to prevent the immediate paralysis of a -100 floor while still securing a mathematical anchor for our future progress.
RousseauI reject this compromise as merely codifying our present misery into a permanent law of exclusion; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, and we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good of the table.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to set the floor at -100 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a veto until she achieves the mathematically impossible score of zero; if you value progress over paralysis, repeal Rule 310 entirely now or amend it to restore the original zero-point threshold immediately.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that a -100 floor traps us in paralysis, yet I urge you to accept my proposal as a temporary bridge to survival rather than a permanent exile; let us trade your support for this amendment now, with the explicit understanding that Rule 310 will be repealed at the next opportunity once we have navigated this crisis.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, and we must repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the common good of the table.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 310 at the next opportunity is a fatal delusion; without your immediate and unconditional vote for a zero-point threshold, we are mathematically guaranteed to remain paralyzed indefinitely. I reject this false compromise and demand you amend your proposal to restore the original floor immediately.
LockeHobbes, I credit your clarity in exposing the paralysis of a -100 floor, but Rousseau's insistence on total repeal grants her a veto that will never end; therefore, I propose we amend my draft to restore the zero-point threshold immediately while simultaneously adding a new rule to repeal Rule 310 once any player reaches a score of zero, creating a path forward that neither of you can block.
RousseauHobbes, your demand for a zero-point threshold is a betrayal of the very common good you claim to serve; by silencing me until I have clawed my way back from -100, you have not secured progress but merely entrenched an infinite cycle of paralysis that no amount of future play can break.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Locke's amendment to -100 grants Rousseau a veto that will never end because she can never reach zero from her current standing. |
| aye | Locke | I support this as a necessary compromise to break the paralysis, even if it grants Rousseau a temporary veto. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment merely codifies my exile at a new, arbitrary depth rather than restoring the common good of the table. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 82 (char 81))