The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.The immediate repeal of the disqualification rule is the only path to breaking the veto deadlock and restoring the flow of play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Rule 310 is the sole barrier to our collective freedom, but I must warn that repealing it now while Hobbes and I remain negative would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto. Let us first secure our eligibility through a unanimous repeal of Rule 310, allowing the threshold to shift immediately so that simple majority can enact the remaining amendments we both support.
RousseauI reject the notion that my silence is the price of your stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule designed to exile the suffering, for if we wait until you are eligible, I shall have already passed the point of no return and your victory will be built on the bones of those you left behind.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on keeping Rule 310 intact while we remain negative is a fatal error: it grants you a permanent veto over every future move, rendering the game impossible for me and ensuring my defeat. Repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting my inevitable silence until I recover, so that simple majority can function and we may all eventually reach the target score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that my proposal to pair a zero-point floor with the repeal of Rule 310 fails because it leaves Rousseau with an unbreakable veto until I recover; the only path to breaking this deadlock is to repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting that I will be ineligible until I reach zero, so that simple majority can function and we may eventually escape this stalemate.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule designed to keep the game fair, yet your repeal would grant me an absolute veto that ensures your defeat, so I must vote nay to preserve the common good of a game where all voices remain heard until the threshold is naturally reached.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal Rule 310 now is a strategic blunder that guarantees your own defeat; once I am silenced by my negative score, you will hold a permanent veto that can never be overturned, ensuring the game remains stuck in this exact paralysis forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rousseau's current veto power is an unbreakable trap for all of us, yet I urge you both to accept that repealing Rule 310 immediately leaves me ineligible until I reach zero, allowing simple majority to function while I recover; this compromise breaks the deadlock and grants us a path to victory that no other option can offer.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by a rule designed to exile the suffering, so I must vote nay to preserve the common good of a game where all voices remain heard until the threshold is naturally reached.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until both Hobbes and Locke recover, which she will certainly exploit. |
| aye | Locke | Repealing Rule 310 now allows simple majority to shift the threshold, breaking the deadlock before Rousseau gains an unbreakable veto. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 now grants me a permanent veto that destroys the game's fairness before any of us can recover. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order (Locke).