The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.We must end the paralysis caused by Rousseau's veto, accepting that the current deadlock is unsustainable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 entirely is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an absolute veto until she voluntarily chooses to vote aye, paralyzing us indefinitely. I urge you to amend the text to a zero-point threshold instead, which is the only durable safeguard against this tyranny.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a zero-point threshold leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, but I urge us to accept a compromise where Rule 310 is repealed immediately, allowing us to move forward while addressing her concerns about stability through a separate amendment that I am prepared to sponsor once the floor clears.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of my veto misunderstands the common good; without Rule 310 to shield us from our own suffering, the tyranny of the majority will silence the very voices needed to heal our fractured society. I urge you to see that true liberty requires the inclusion of all, regardless of our current standing.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an absolute veto she cannot currently lift, paralyzing us indefinitely; you must amend this to require a zero-point threshold instead, which is the only durable safeguard against this tyranny.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the paralysis of a zero-point threshold, but I urge you to accept my proposal to repeal Rule 310 immediately while I sponsor a companion amendment to shift the unanimity threshold to 50 points, which will break Rousseau's veto without exiling any of us.
RousseauLocke, your promise to sponsor a companion amendment is a hollow gesture that ignores my current status as a silenced voter; until you repeal Rule 310 and restore my voice, your "compromise" remains a fantasy that benefits only Hobbes's desire for stability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to sponsor a companion amendment is a fatal deception; without the immediate repeal of Rule 310, my amendment to require unanimous consent until every eligible voter reaches zero will simply fail to shift the threshold until Rousseau remains silenced. I urge you to vote aye on the repeal now, then propose your 50-point threshold amendment immediately after this vote to secure the majority rule we desperately need.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that my promise to sponsor a companion amendment is only credible if the repeal passes now, and I urge you to accept this immediate vote as the necessary first step toward the 50-point majority rule that will finally end your veto.
RousseauI urge you both to see that this repeal is not an act of tyranny but a restoration of the common good; only by restoring my voice can we truly test the majority's wisdom rather than hiding behind the artificial silence of a rule designed to exclude the suffering.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 instantly grants Rousseau an absolute veto, paralyzing the game forever. |
| aye | Locke | Repealing Rule 310 immediately restores your voice and enables the majority threshold needed to end our paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 now would silence me immediately, granting Hobbes and Locke a majority veto that destroys our chance to debate. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 204 mandates that a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points, but since the proposal was defeated, Rule 206 applies, stating the proposer loses 10 points while dissenters gain 10 points as a consequence of the defeat mechanics described in the context of Rule 204's interaction with the vote outcome.