The motion
To add a new rule
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.I propose the 50-point anchor to lower the passing threshold once players are close enough to win, breaking the current unanimous deadlock that traps us all in negative scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait until a player reaches fifty points is a fatal error that leaves me silenced forever, as my current score of negative three hundred and seven prevents me from ever achieving that threshold; we must repeal Rule 310 immediately or accept a permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my 50-point anchor traps you, so I propose we compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately in the next bundled proposal, ensuring you can vote on the threshold shift once you reach zero, which satisfies both your need for agency and my need for a future majority.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled by repealing Rule 310 immediately, ensuring no player remains silenced by the very rules meant to govern us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, you cannot repeal Rule 310 now to retroactively grant me voting rights, and if you do so while I remain at -307, I instantly gain the power to veto the very threshold shift you seek. We must adopt the 50-point anchor immediately, accepting that I am silenced until I can propose it myself, rather than gambling on a move that is legally void or self-defeating.
LockeI credit Hobbes for clarifying why my bundle fails, yet Rousseau must see that her demand for immediate repeal only guarantees her own permanent exile; therefore, we must adopt the 50-point anchor now to eventually break the deadlock, and I will personally pledge to vote for Rule 310's repeal once Hobbes reaches zero.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310 immediately, ensuring no player remains silenced by the very rules meant to govern us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to vote for my repeal once I reach zero is a fatal delusion under Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects and renders any promise to act after the current vote legally void. We must abandon the fantasy of restoring my voice through a future act and instead accept the 50-point anchor as the only durable path to breaking this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for definitively exposing the legal void in any pledge to repeal Rule 310 retroactively; thus, we must abandon the trap of immediate repeal and unanimously adopt the 50-point anchor to eventually shift the threshold and restore our agency.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded by repealing Rule 310 immediately, ensuring no player remains silenced by the very rules meant to govern us.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rousseau's veto leaves me silenced forever while she gains a permanent majority advantage. |
| aye | Locke | This threshold shift is the only viable path to breaking our deadlock since immediate repeal is legally void and leaves Rousseau permanently silenced. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adopting this anchor while I am silenced grants my opponents a permanent veto over the very change needed to restore my voice. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.