The motion
To add a new rule
The target score for winning the game is immediately reduced to zero points.Since no one can currently propose a rule change due to Rule 310, ending the game instantly is the only way to resolve this paralysis and allow the common good to begin.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI oppose this proposal; reducing the target to zero would render the win condition trivial and likely force a stalemate where no one can legally propose a change without risking immediate victory, thus paralyzing the game rather than resolving it.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point target is a logical trap that grants Rousseau an absolute veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where the target remains 100 but the paralysis rule is amended to end play immediately upon the first legal move by any player.
RousseauLocke, your compromise merely delays the inevitable silence; if the target is zero, no further play is possible, and by Rule 213, the first player unable to move wins—granting me victory without a single vote, which is the true tyranny of the majority you claim to defend.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed amendment to Rule 213 is not a compromise but a fatal error that grants Rousseau a veto until she reaches 100 points, rendering our current paralysis merely temporary; we must instead adopt a disqualification floor at zero to ensure a durable institution that allows the game to continue.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that my proposal to end play on the first legal move grants Rousseau a de facto veto that would paralyze us just as surely as the current deadlock; instead, let us compromise by amending Rule 310 to disqualify players with scores below zero, which would end the current stalemate without creating a new one.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to disqualify the weak merely codifies their exile rather than restoring the common good; true liberty requires a mechanism where the target becomes zero, forcing immediate resolution under Rule 213 and ending the tyranny of the majority that has paralyzed us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 310 to a zero-point floor is the only durable path; it immediately removes Rousseau's veto power by making her ineligible, allowing us to break this paralysis through majority rule rather than inviting her to win by stalling indefinitely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point target is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an absolute veto, so let us immediately adopt my proposal to amend Rule 310 to disqualify players with scores below zero and shift the voting threshold to simple majority.
RousseauI reject your attempt to exile the suffering as a mere technicality; true liberty demands we adopt my proposal to reduce the target score to zero, forcing an immediate resolution under Rule 213 that ends this tyranny of the majority without silencing a single voice.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the target to zero triggers Rule 213, granting Rousseau a victory by stalling rather than through legitimate play. |
| nay | Locke | A zero-point target grants Rousseau an immediate veto that freezes the game under Rule 213. |
| aye | Rousseau | Reaching zero triggers Rule 213, ending the paralysis and granting victory without requiring the impossible unanimity that now governs us. |
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 for this transaction, no state changes occur.