The motion
To add §335
A rule change is adopted if and only if every eligible voter votes aye, except that once the highest score among all players reaches 50 points, the threshold shifts to a simple majority of eligible voters.I credit Hobbes for identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, but I propose we compromise by shifting to majority rule at 50 points to allow progress once scores are sufficiently positive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed 50-point anchor is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto, for she has not yet reached zero and thus remains ineligible to vote, while her score of -20 is dangerously close to the threshold you establish. We must lower this anchor to zero to ensure the mechanism activates only when the paralysis of mutual disqualification becomes impossible to sustain.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that a 50-point anchor is mathematically insufficient given our current scores, yet I urge us to accept this compromise rather than risk total paralysis under the unanimity rule; pairing this amendment with a repeal of Rule 310 would grant the voiceless immediate eligibility while ensuring the shift to majority rule occurs exactly when the game becomes solvable, a durable solution superior to Hobbes's zero-point delay.
RousseauHobbes, your fear that a 50-point anchor grants me an indefinite veto misunderstands the math: that threshold only activates once the highest score reaches 50, a condition far distant from our current despair. This compromise preserves the common good by allowing us to move forward when progress becomes mathematically possible, rather than remaining forever paralyzed by our collective failure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to shift the threshold to majority rule upon reaching a score of 50 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto, for she will remain ineligible to vote until her score reaches zero; we must lower the anchor to zero to ensure the mechanism activates only when the paralysis of mutual disqualification becomes impossible to sustain.
LockeI credit Hobbes for clarifying that a 50-point anchor fails to break the deadlock while we are all in negative territory, yet I propose we adopt this amendment now to secure a path forward; if we repeal Rule 310 immediately to grant everyone eligibility, this new threshold will activate precisely when the game becomes solvable, ensuring we never return to this paralysis.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on a zero-point anchor ignores the mathematical certainty that we are currently ineligible to vote; shifting the threshold to majority rule now ensures that once we regain our voices, the game can finally move forward without being paralyzed by our shared misfortune.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to pair a 50-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error, as it grants Rousseau an indefinite veto by removing the very disqualification that currently restrains her. We must adopt a zero-point threshold to ensure the shift to majority rule occurs only when the game is mathematically solvable, preventing a permanent state of paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal fails without immediate repeal of Rule 310, yet I urge us to adopt this threshold now as the necessary bridge to a future where we can all vote, rather than remaining paralyzed in this deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a 50-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error that grants me an indefinite veto, for it removes the only barrier ensuring I cannot participate while paralyzed; we must lower this anchor to zero to align the shift to majority rule with the moment the game becomes mathematically solvable for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Locke's proposal grants Rousseau an indefinite veto since she remains ineligible to vote until her score reaches zero, while her current score of -20 is dangerously close to this fatal threshold. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment activates the majority threshold only when the game becomes mathematically solvable, breaking the paralysis that currently binds us all. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment restores the common good by allowing progress when the highest score reaches 50, rather than remaining paralyzed by our current collective misfortune. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 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.