The motion
To repeal §310
and strike it from the statute.Rule 310 is the sole barrier preventing us from shifting to simple majority, yet repealing it now is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto; however, I must repeal it to clear the path for a new rule that shifts the threshold based on my own score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 now is a fatal error: it immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto that will never shift to simple majority until she voluntarily climbs to 50 points, a move mathematically impossible under our current scores. We must wait until her score is non-negative before attempting to change the threshold; until then, any repeal leaves us paralyzed by her absolute power to block every amendment.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the precise arithmetic that exposes the danger of immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this repeal bundled with an amendment to Rule 203 that shifts the threshold to simple majority once Rousseau reaches -50, thereby granting us immediate freedom while leaving her a modest, temporary anchor that we can later remove.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a negative score, yet I must yield to the cold arithmetic of our current deadlock and PASS.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic is flawed: amending Rule 203 to shift the threshold at -50 does not override Rule 310, which explicitly bars negative-scored players from voting at all; adopting your proposal today would permanently entrench Rousseau's veto power until she reaches an impossible score. We must repeal Rule 310 first to restore eligibility, then adopt the threshold amendment to secure the 50-point anchor.
LockeI credit Hobbes for proving that our repeal must come first, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt this repeal now to restore eligibility, then immediately adopt a bundle that shifts the threshold to simple majority upon reaching our current lowest score, ensuring we never again face this paralysis.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a negative score, yet I must yield to the cold arithmetic of our current deadlock and PASS.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: amending Rule 203 while I remain at -237 does not override Rule 310, which explicitly strips negative-scored players of voting power; adopting your proposal would permanently entrench Rousseau's absolute veto until she achieves an impossible score, leaving us forever paralyzed by her single voice.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my isolationist repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately to restore my voting power, then immediately adopt a bundled rule shifting the threshold to simple majority upon my return to zero, ensuring we break the deadlock without entrenching her absolute power.
RousseauI reject your compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by the tyranny of a negative score, so I cannot vote for any repeal that leaves me ineligible to shape the laws of our society.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 while I remain negative instantly grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until she climbs to an impossible score. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 310 now grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto until she voluntarily reaches a score we cannot influence. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing now leaves me ineligible to vote on the threshold amendment that would truly free us. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated repeal of rule 310, his score decreases by 10.