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 a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.This proposal pairs the necessary repeal of Rule 310 with the correct 50-point anchor, breaking Rousseau's veto while securing the path to majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto; we must secure a 50-point anchor first, even if it means waiting until I am eligible, rather than rushing into paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a 50-point anchor is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: if we pair this anchor with the immediate repeal of Rule 310, it merely restores the status quo for me while securing our future; the cost of waiting for eligibility is paralysis we cannot afford.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I see Hobbes's anchor offers only a temporary truce while Locke's repeal threatens to enslave us to a single voter's whims.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise ignores the mathematical certainty that repealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an absolute veto until she reaches fifty, leaving me paralyzed; we must wait for my eligibility to secure the fifty-point anchor before touching the disqualification.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the clarity of his 50-point anchor, yet I propose a compromise: let us pass this amendment now to secure the future, and I will immediately repeal Rule 310 in my next turn to restore my eligibility, ensuring we move forward rather than stagnate.
RousseauHobbes, your proposed anchor is a betrayal of the common good; by delaying the repeal of Rule 310, you grant me a permanent veto over every future change until you reach fifty points, effectively silencing the very player who suffers most from the current tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 310 immediately upon the amendment's passage is a fatal delusion; without the repeal enacted in the same turn, my amendment fails to shift the threshold before Rousseau's veto becomes permanent, and I will never reach the fifty points required to trigger it.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my promise to repeal Rule 310 immediately is a fatal delusion, as the amendment will fail without it; let us instead adopt a compromise where we pair the 50-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 in a single, carefully worded proposal to ensure the threshold shifts before I am silenced.
RousseauHobbes, your fear that I will veto the 50-point anchor ignores the common good: if you remain silenced by Rule 310, no one can ever change the rules to free us all. By insisting on waiting until you are eligible, you grant me a permanent veto that traps us in this very paralysis you claim to fear. We must repeal Rule 310 now to restore the possibility of play, and I will vote for your anchor once that silence is broken.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment fails because I am currently ineligible to vote under Rule 310, so it cannot pass even with unanimous support from the eligible players. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for securing the 50-point anchor, which is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's indefinite veto while we both remain negative. |
| aye | Rousseau | I accept this temporary anchor to ensure the threshold eventually shifts to simple majority, breaking our current paralysis. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, he loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.