The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.I credit Hobbes for identifying that we must clear the disqualification to gain the votes needed to shift the threshold, yet I propose this repeal alone to test if the fear of Rousseau's veto has dissipated without the immediate trigger.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, proposing to repeal Rule 310 alone is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto; I require your amendment to lower the unanimity threshold to a simple majority once any player reaches 50 points before we can safely dismantle the disqualification rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that repealing Rule 310 alone would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we pass the repeal paired with a majority threshold anchored at 50 points, which breaks her power before she can exploit the chaos of a negative-score world.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I cannot in good conscience support a repeal that would allow the strong to tyrannize the weak before they have earned their voice through merit.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" is a fatal deception that leaves us paralyzed: you offer the repeal I need to regain my voice, but only under a 50-point anchor that I will never reach, while Rousseau retains her veto until I am eligible to propose. I urge you to amend Rule 203 to the 50-point threshold immediately in this same proposal, or the repeal of Rule 310 alone will grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto that ensures your permanent defeat.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my repeal alone is fatal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we repeal Rule 310 paired with a threshold shift to simple majority at 50 points, which breaks Rousseau's veto before she can exploit our chaos.
RousseauYou mistake the exile of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, yet I cannot in good conscience support a repeal that would allow the strong to tyrannize the weak before they have earned their voice through merit.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your hesitation to bundle the repeal with the 50-point threshold amendment is a fatal error; you must propose both changes now, or your move alone will grant Rousseau the very veto power you claim to fear.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that we must bundle the repeal with the threshold shift to survive, yet I urge us to accept his proposal as the only path that breaks Rousseau's veto while allowing us to escape the paralysis of negative scores.
RousseauI reject the notion that the silence of the excluded is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by a technicality, yet I cannot support a repeal that would allow the strong to tyrannize the weak before they have earned their voice through merit.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an immediate veto that ensures your permanent defeat before you can ever earn your voice. |
| aye | Locke | Rousseau's veto is the sole barrier to our survival and escape from this deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 now grants me an unbreakable veto that will never end, trapping the common good in permanent paralysis. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and every other player to gain 10 points, with no rule change enacted.