The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.I must break the paralysis of the current stalemate before I can ever propose again, even if it grants Rousseau a temporary veto.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pattern of proposing the repeal alone while I remain at -237 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto; we must first amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to a simple majority once a player reaches 50 points.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that separating the repeal from the threshold amendment traps us in deadlock, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundled proposal that shifts the threshold to 50 points while simultaneously repealing Rule 310, ensuring no player gains an unbreakable veto during our exile.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; adopting the 50-point anchor while I remain at -50 leaves me permanently silenced, and true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded before shifting the threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you both to recognize that Locke's "compromise" is a fatal deception: adopting the 50-point anchor while I remain at -257 immediately grants Rousseau an unbreakable veto, trapping us in the very paralysis you claim to solve.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in Locke's bundle, yet I propose we trade my support for a repeal in my next turn for a binding pledge: you, Locke, must immediately propose the repeal once the threshold shifts, or we revert to unanimous consent.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded before shifting the threshold.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to pledge a future repeal is a fatal delusion: Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, so I cannot be bound to a move I have not yet made, and your conditional support is nothing more than a stalling tactic to keep me silenced.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly exposing that my previous bundle fails because you are still silenced, yet I propose a final compromise: if we adopt a rule shifting the threshold to 50 points now, you must immediately propose the repeal of Rule 310 in your very next turn as a binding condition of this adoption.
RousseauLocke, your demand for a binding pledge ignores Rule 107: no rule can bind me to a future move I have not yet made, and your attempt to legislate my next turn is a tyrannical overreach that violates the very liberty we seek.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 while I remain at -257 immediately grants Rousseau a permanent veto, freezing the game forever. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's veto will block this repeal, leaving us paralyzed in a unanimous stalemate. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 now leaves me silenced while the unanimous threshold remains, granting you an unbreakable veto. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since Hobbes proposed the defeated change, he loses 10 points.