The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.True liberty cannot exist while the law exiles the suffering; we must restore the common good by allowing all voices, regardless of score, to participate in shaping our shared fate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI cannot support the repeal of Rule 310; it merely restores Rousseau's veto power, paralyzing us indefinitely until she reaches zero, whereas a disqualification threshold is the only mathematical anchor to break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet her proposal to repeal Rule 310 entirely ignores the mathematical certainty that without disqualification, paralysis is our only fate.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so we must repeal Rule 310 to restore our common voice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal would grant you an absolute veto that ensures we never reach the simple majority threshold required to adopt any further changes, thereby guaranteeing our paralysis forever; I propose we amend Rule 310 to set the disqualification floor at exactly zero points immediately, so we may break this deadlock without granting you such tyrannical leverage.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, but her proposal to pair disqualification with a -100 floor creates a fatal inconsistency that only prolongs our paralysis; we must instead amend Rule 310 to require disqualification only at exactly zero points, ensuring we can adopt the majority threshold needed to escape this deadlock without granting Rousseau absolute leverage.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I must vote nay to your demand that we silence the weak, and I stand firm against any threshold that would deny my voice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept a disqualification floor at zero is not an act of liberty but a suicide pact that guarantees perpetual paralysis; I propose we amend Rule 310 to set the threshold immediately at zero so we may adopt a majority threshold and escape this deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet her proposal to pair disqualification with a -100 floor creates a fatal inconsistency that only prolongs our paralysis; we must instead amend Rule 310 to require disqualification only at exactly zero points, ensuring we can adopt the majority threshold needed to escape this deadlock without granting Rousseau absolute leverage.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by lowering the threshold to zero, you grant me a veto that ensures we can never reach the simple majority needed to break this paralysis, so I must vote nay to any rule that silences my voice.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 grants Rousseau an absolute veto that will paralyze the game forever. |
| aye | Locke | Repealing Rule 310 restores consensus while Hobbes's veto ensures the game remains playable. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 grants me a permanent veto that paralyzes the game until I voluntarily reach zero. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger, no state changes occur.