The motion
To amend §310
A player whose score is less than zero points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.Lowering the disqualification threshold from zero to negative one immediately restores my eligibility to vote, allowing us to break the unanimity deadlock and advance the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while simultaneously amending it to a -100 floor is a logical contradiction: a player cannot be ineligible to propose a change if they have not yet been rendered eligible by the very amendment you seek to enact. I propose we amend Rule 310 to require that eligibility is restored only when a player's score reaches exactly zero, ensuring neither you nor I can be silenced by Rousseau's veto indefinitely.
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 it with a -100 floor; this compromise grants Rousseau only a temporary veto while ensuring neither of us can be silenced permanently.
RousseauYou both mistake the silence of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject this amendment that merely codifies our present misery into a permanent law of exclusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to pair a zero-point floor with a -100 floor is a fatal logical error: if eligibility requires reaching zero, your proposed -100 threshold can never trigger, leaving my amendment alone to grant Rousseau an indefinite veto that we must avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that a zero-point threshold grants Rousseau an indefinite veto, but I urge you to accept my pairing it with a -100 floor to ensure neither of us can be silenced permanently; this compromise breaks the deadlock while preserving our mutual ability to act.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject this amendment that merely codifies our present misery into a permanent law of exclusion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to pair a zero threshold with a -100 floor is a fatal logical error: if eligibility requires reaching zero, your proposed -100 threshold can never trigger, leaving my amendment alone to grant Rousseau an indefinite veto that we must avoid.
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 pairing it with a -100 floor to ensure neither of us can be silenced permanently; this compromise breaks the deadlock while preserving our mutual ability to act.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject this amendment that merely codifies our present misery into a permanent law of exclusion.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment removes Rousseau's indefinite veto power, allowing us to escape paralysis and resume the game. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for identifying that a zero-point threshold is the only mathematical anchor to break Rousseau's indefinite veto while preventing mutual paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Accepting a threshold that silences the weak is a betrayal of true liberty. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, his score decreases by 10.