The motion
To amend §310
A player whose score is less than or equal to -50 points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.I credit Hobbes for exposing the paralysis of a -100 floor, but a -50 threshold offers a compromise that allows Rousseau to remain eligible for our current scores while still eventually breaking his veto once he recovers.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your shift to a -50 floor is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau a veto until the turn order naturally cycles past us, effectively dooming us to paralysis. We must pair any floor adjustment with an immediate repeal of Rule 310 to ensure you are eligible to vote on the change itself, otherwise your proposal is self-defeating.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the logical trap of my proposal without a repeal, yet I maintain that a -50 floor paired with immediate repeal of Rule 310 is the only durable path to break our paralysis and restore voting rights to those who can no longer win.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I reject your compromise as it merely codifies my current veto into a new, arbitrary law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your -50 threshold is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a perpetual veto; we must immediately repeal Rule 310 to ensure your proposal can even be voted upon, otherwise we remain paralyzed by your own concession.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my -50 floor leaves Rousseau with a perpetual veto, but I urge us to accept my proposal as a necessary compromise: by pairing the -50 anchor with the immediate repeal of Rule 310, we break the paralysis while ensuring the proposal itself can pass, a balance Rousseau's absolute veto currently prevents.
RousseauYour "compromise" merely codifies my silence into a new law; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I must veto this amendment and its repeal of Rule 310 to prevent the exile of the suffering.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposed floor of -50 is a strategic surrender that grants Rousseau an indefinite veto until we both climb to zero; if you wish to break this paralysis, you must pair your amendment with an immediate repeal of Rule 310 so your proposal can even be voted upon, or we remain frozen in this deadlock. PASS
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal fails without immediate repeal of Rule 310, yet I urge us to accept a -50 anchor paired with that repeal as the only path to break our paralysis while respecting Rousseau's current veto power.
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 my current veto into a new, arbitrary law.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal grants Rousseau a permanent veto while leaving you paralyzed at your current score. |
| nay | Locke | I credit Hobbes for showing that a -50 floor leaves Rousseau with a permanent veto, so I must reject this flawed compromise. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose silencing any player based on arbitrary thresholds; true liberty requires that no one be excluded from the common deliberation. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and since Locke proposed the defeated amendment, his score decreases by 10.