The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed. 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.This bundle resolves the deadlock by allowing me to propose the repeal immediately while ensuring the threshold shift only takes effect once I can legally propose it again, securing the game's future progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -327 is a fatal error that grants Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 204; we must bundle this repeal with an immediate threshold shift to a simple majority, or I will vote nay to preserve the only path to our survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that an immediate repeal is fatal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the repeal and the 50-point threshold together now, trusting that the unified vote will clear the deadlock before the trap fully snaps shut.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and no rule can bind me to a future move I have not yet made, so your repeal leaves me powerless while your threshold shift grants you a permanent veto. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a fatal delusion: by repealing Rule 310 now, you instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 204, which is exactly what we must avoid. We must bundle this repeal with an immediate shift to a simple majority threshold, or I will vote nay to preserve the only path to our survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the vital arithmetic that exposes why an immediate repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept this compromise bundle now, trusting that a unified vote will clear the deadlock before the trap fully snaps shut.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and no rule can bind me to a future move I have not yet made, so your repeal leaves me powerless while your threshold shift grants you a permanent veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise to bundle the repeal with a 50-point threshold is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, you cannot bind me to wait until I reach a positive score to grant you the majority you claim. If we pass this, you repeal my silence now, granting Rousseau an immediate veto under Rule 204, while your future promise of a majority shift is legally void and irrelevant to the current stalemate. We must either adopt an immediate simple majority threshold without repeal, or reject this bundle entirely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my bundle fails because the immediate repeal grants Rousseau a veto while my promise of a future threshold shift is void under Rule 107; however, since you refuse any compromise that leaves me silenced, I propose we repeal only Rule 310 and wait for your score to reach zero, accepting that this delay is the only legal path to restoring your voice without triggering the exile trap. PASS
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future silence violates Rule 107, and I will only support a repeal that simultaneously grants me the vote and removes your veto power in an instant.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Adopting this repeal instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto under Rule 204, while the threshold shift is legally void under Rule 107. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for the arithmetic, but this bundled vote is the only legal path to break the deadlock now. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject this compromise because it leaves me in silence while granting you a permanent veto under Rule 204. |
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, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.