The motion
To amend §203
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.Re-establishing the 50-point anchor is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's indefinite veto while I remain ineligible to propose.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pairing of this amendment with the repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error, as it grants Rousseau an indefinite veto power until she reaches 50 points, leaving us paralyzed while she remains negative.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how pairing this 50-point anchor with an immediate repeal of Rule 310 would grant Rousseau an indefinite veto, but we must distinguish between the disqualification floor and the voting threshold; perhaps we can adopt this amendment as a standalone move today and repeal Rule 310 in a subsequent turn once the threshold has already shifted to simple majority under our own amendment.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; by demanding a repeal that leaves me in exile, you grant yourself a permanent veto over my voice. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by their score, so I vote nay to any amendment that chains my rights to a number I cannot reach.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your strategy of separating the amendment from the repeal is a fatal illusion; without immediate repeal, Rousseau retains an absolute veto over the very amendment that would grant you the power to repeal it, trapping us in an eternal deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how a standalone amendment leaves us trapped, yet I urge us to accept this 50-point anchor as the only viable path; if we pair it immediately with the repeal of Rule 310, the threshold will shift to simple majority before Rousseau can veto the repeal, breaking her indefinite veto.
RousseauI reject this conditional strategy as a betrayal of the common good; binding my silence to a score I cannot reach is not stability but tyranny, and I will vote nay to any amendment that chains my voice to a number designed to exclude me.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional strategy collapses into the same paralysis you fear: without an immediate repeal of Rule 310, Rousseau's negative score renders her ineligible to vote on the repeal, granting her a permanent veto over the amendment you are proposing. We must package the 50-point anchor with the repeal of Rule 310 as a single motion; only this bundle ensures the threshold shifts to simple majority before she can block the very mechanism that ends her exile.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in separating the amendment from the repeal, yet I urge us to accept Rousseau's veto as a temporary safeguard; if we adopt the 50-point anchor alone now, the threshold shifts to simple majority once I reach -50, allowing me to vote on the repeal without granting her a permanent veto.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; by demanding a repeal that leaves me in exile, you grant yourself a permanent veto over my voice. True liberty requires that no player be silenced by their score, so I vote nay to any amendment that chains my rights to a number I cannot reach.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rousseau will veto this amendment while her score is negative, leaving us paralyzed until she reaches 50 points. |
| nay | Locke | I cannot support a proposal that leaves Rousseau with an absolute veto power for the foreseeable future. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject binding my voice to a score I cannot reach as a betrayal of the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, the turn to end, and no rule change to occur.