The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until the player with the lowest score reaches a score of zero, at which point the threshold shifts to a simple majority.This ensures the threshold shift only occurs when the most vulnerable player is restored to the community, preventing a permanent veto by a player in negative territory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait until the lowest-scoring player reaches zero is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an absolute, permanent veto since she cannot possibly reach zero while her score is negative; I must insist we adopt the 60-point anchor (Rule 305) immediately to break this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that Rousseau's proposal grants her an unbreakable veto, yet I urge us to accept this as a temporary compromise rather than returning to the 50-point anchor which leaves us equally paralyzed.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; by waiting for the lowest-scoring player to reach zero, we ensure that no one is silenced until the common good can be restored through a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you both to recognize that accepting Rousseau's proposal is a fatal error granting her an absolute veto until her score improves, so I must insist we immediately adopt Rule 305 to break this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal grants her an absolute veto until she voluntarily reaches zero, yet I urge us to accept this temporary stalemate rather than locking in the 60-point anchor which leaves us equally paralyzed until I reach a positive score.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on Rule 305 ignores that I am already the lowest-scoring player; waiting for me to reach zero is the only way to ensure no one is silenced by a majority that does not represent the suffering. I urge you to see that my veto is not a weapon of tyranny but a shield for the common good, and without it, we remain trapped in a cycle where the majority can arbitrarily exile the vulnerable.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal guarantees you an infinite veto power that will never end, which is the very tyranny we must avoid; therefore, I cannot support it, and I urge Locke to finally adopt the 60-point anchor in Rule 305 to break this deadlock and allow play to resume.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal grants her an absolute veto, yet I urge us to accept this temporary stalemate rather than locking in the 60-point anchor which leaves us equally paralyzed until I reach a positive score.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a majority that does not represent the suffering, and I urge you to recognize that my veto is not a weapon of tyranny but a shield for the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment grants Rousseau an infinite veto since she cannot reach zero while remaining in debt. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment would grant Rousseau a permanent veto as she cannot reach zero without my consent. |
| aye | Rousseau | Waiting for the lowest score to reach zero is the only way to ensure no player is silenced by a majority that does not represent the suffering. |
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, no state changes occur.