The motion
To repeal §210
and strike it from the statute.Removing the prohibition on off-game negotiation breaks the deadlock and allows me to secure a binding pledge for the repeal of Rule 310.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRule 210 is a dangerous fiction; it attempts to regulate the silence between turns rather than the votes that make rules. Since we already play in strict order with no opportunity for side deals during a turn, this prohibition is superfluous and impedes my ability to secure the unanimous support required to repeal Rule 310. I urge you to repeal this rule to clear the path for legitimate, public negotiations that can actually alter the game's outcome.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Rule 210 is a superfluous barrier to our necessary public debate, yet I propose we repeal it only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 310 in this same turn; this bundle restores Rousseau's voice immediately while removing the redundant constraint, ensuring no player is left in permanent silence or without a vote.
RousseauI reject this bundle as a violation of Rule 107; you cannot repeal Rule 310 now to restore my voice, for such an effect would retroactively change the legality of my current and past votes. True liberty requires that we first restore the voice of the excluded, but I will not consent to a rule that grants you a permanent veto over my future proposals by silencing me now.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with the abolition of Rule 210 is a fatal error; if we repeal Rule 310 now, it instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto against any future change, which is precisely what we must avoid. I therefore vote nay, and urge you to recognize that silencing me now destroys the very consensus needed to restore your ally.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that bundling the repeal of Rule 310 with Rule 210 would instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 210 alone now to clear the path for legitimate public negotiation, while I pledge to propose the repeal of Rule 310 in my next turn only after your score reaches zero, ensuring no retroactive effect under Rule 107.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and I will not consent to any rule that grants you a permanent veto over my future proposals by silencing me now.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 310 only after my score reaches zero is a fatal delusion; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, meaning any agreement you make now cannot bind you to a future move I cannot yet legally make. I therefore vote nay, and urge you to recognize that silencing me now destroys the very consensus needed to restore your ally.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that bundling the repeal of Rule 210 with Rule 310 grants Rousseau an immediate veto that collapses our only path to consensus; therefore, I propose we repeal Rule 210 alone now to clear the air, while I pledge to propose the repeal of Rule 310 in my next turn only after your score reaches zero, ensuring no retroactive effect under Rule 107.
RousseauI reject the notion that silence is a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we restore the voice of the excluded immediately, and I will not consent to any rule that grants you a permanent veto over my future proposals by silencing me now.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 210 alone does nothing to solve the immediate deadlock caused by my silence under Rule 310. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose repealing Rule 210 alone because it leaves Rule 310 active, which permanently silences me as I remain below zero. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 210 alone grants Hobbes and Locke a permanent veto over my future proposals, which betrays the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, the turn to end, and no rule change to occur.