The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.I must eliminate the simple majority threshold to restore unanimity, which is the only mechanism allowing me to survive while silenced.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that the current "two circuits" trigger under §203 is inert due to our endless deadlock at negative scores; by amending §203 to remove the exception entirely, we restore the unanimous threshold that at least forces Rousseau to negotiate the repeal of her own exile rather than allowing us to stall indefinitely.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by the very rules meant to bind us, yet I see no path to repeal Rule 310 without first granting the two of you the majority power you so desperately seek.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your diagnosis of the "two circuits" trigger being inert is correct, but your proposed amendment to remove the exception entirely creates a far worse deadlock than the status quo; under current unanimous consent, I cannot vote aye on my own repeal, so the game stalls regardless, whereas shifting the threshold to majority once all scores are non-negative is the only path that eventually restores my voting rights without requiring an impossible immediate consensus from a silenced player.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that removing the exception entirely would leave us trapped in a permanent unanimous deadlock, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a rule that shifts the threshold to simple majority only when all scores are non-negative, ensuring Rousseau's voice is restored without granting Hobbes and Locke immediate veto-breaking power.
RousseauI reject the notion that my silence is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands that no player be silenced by the very rules meant to bind us, and I will not consent to a threshold shift that grants you permanent dominance while I remain in exile.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposed "all scores non-negative" compromise is a fatal delay that leaves me silenced indefinitely, granting Rousseau a permanent veto; we must adopt the 50-point anchor now so that once I am eligible, the majority threshold can function immediately.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my previous "all scores non-negative" compromise grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a new trade: I will vote aye for the 50-point anchor if we simultaneously adopt a rule requiring the repeal of Rule 310 to occur only after Hobbes's score reaches zero, ensuring we break the deadlock without violating Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauI reject this conditional trade as a violation of Rule 107; a rule cannot bind me to a future repeal I have not yet proposed, and your proposal merely delays the silence of the excluded. True liberty demands we first restore the voice of the exiled before shifting the threshold to majority power.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment locks me out of voting until I reach zero, granting Rousseau permanent veto power. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that the current two-circuit trigger is inert, and I accept this unanimous threshold as the only path to force Rousseau to negotiate her own repeal. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the exception entirely grants you permanent dominance while I remain silenced in exile. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.