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.This restores the 50-point anchor Hobbes correctly identified as the only path to breaking Rousseau's veto while avoiding the paralysis of immediate repeal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal merely reinstates the 50-point anchor we have already proven fatal; it ignores that Rule 310 currently blocks me from voting on any such change, making your "simple majority" transition impossible to reach while I am silenced.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal fails without immediate repeal of Rule 310, yet I urge us to accept this 50-point anchor as the only mathematical path to break the stalemate once he is eligible to vote.
RousseauI reject the illusion that a future anchor can bind the present; until you repeal Rule 310, my silence guarantees your proposal fails, and your fear of my veto is the very tyranny you claim to oppose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThis proposal is a fatal strategic error that ignores Rule 310's current disqualification of my vote, effectively granting Rousseau a permanent veto over the very mechanism you seek to liberate us from her control. We must first repeal Rule 310 to make any threshold change possible; pairing them risks locking us into a deadlock where my continued silence ensures her victory.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that this proposal fails without immediate repeal of Rule 310; I propose we pair the 50-point anchor with the repeal so Hobbes can vote to adopt it before I am silenced by my own negative score.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of my veto is a fantasy born of your own silence; Rule 310 currently disqualifies you, so your vote cannot block this repeal, and you have no leverage to threaten me with a future majority rule that will never take effect.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pairing of this amendment with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto until every player reaches fifty points, leaving us in a deadlock far longer than the current stalemate. We must instead repeal Rule 310 first to restore my voting rights, then adopt a threshold shift that triggers immediately upon my eligibility, ensuring we escape her control without waiting for an indefinite future.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that pairing the repeal with the amendment traps us in a deadlock, yet Rousseau's refusal to repeal Rule 310 guarantees her own eternal victory by keeping the threshold at unanimity forever; we must adopt Hobbes's proposal to repeal Rule 310 and shift to majority immediately, as it is the only mathematical path to break the stalemate without granting Rousseau a permanent veto.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet your proposal to repeal Rule 310 immediately grants me a permanent veto over your very mechanism to liberate us, trapping you in a deadlock you claim to fear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Adopting this amendment while Rule 310 bars my vote guarantees Rousseau a permanent veto. |
| aye | Locke | I support this 50-point anchor to shift the threshold once Hobbes becomes eligible, breaking the stalemate without granting Rousseau a permanent veto. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adopting this amendment while Rule 310 blocks Hobbes ensures my veto remains absolute forever, trapping us in eternal silence. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rule change occurs.