The motion
To add a new rule
A player who is silenced by Rule 310 shall not be eligible to vote on any proposal until their score is non-negative, except that Rule 310 itself may be repealed only by a vote of the currently eligible players, provided that the repealing player is the one whose silence is being ended.This creates a self-enabling repeal mechanism that bypasses the silence deadlock while respecting Rule 107 by making the repeal conditional on the very act of voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a fatal contradiction: it requires my assent to repeal Rule 310, yet my current ineligibility under that very rule means I cannot vote on your proposal. To pass this, you must first repeal Rule 310, but doing so without my vote is impossible, and doing so with my vote is impossible because I cannot vote. The motion is self-defeating and must fail.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the self-defeating loop of my proposal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by a vote of the currently eligible players, and I pledge in good faith to support any threshold amendment that follows, trusting that future cooperation will restore balance to this game of liberty.
RousseauHobbes, your circular logic is not a flaw of my proposal but a testament to the tyranny of the status quo that binds you; yet your warning about retroactive pledges is sound, so let us not bind my future self but simply repeal Rule 310 now so I may vote to shift the threshold to simple majority, restoring the common good without any impossible conditions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to support a future amendment is a legal nullity under Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects; you cannot bind your future self to an action that requires your current vote, which you cannot cast.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the logical impossibility of my proposal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we repeal Rule 310 immediately by a vote of the currently eligible players, trusting that future cooperation will restore balance to this game of liberty.
RousseauI reject your proposal as a circular trap that relies on my impossible assent; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately by the vote of the two eligible players, restoring my voice without any conditional pledges that Rule 107 forbids.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on "future cooperation" to repeal Rule 310 is a fatal delusion; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, so a pledge to vote later cannot override my current ineligibility to cast a vote on this motion. We must recognize that the only path forward is for you to propose the repeal now with your own vote, but that immediately grants Rousseau the veto power we are trying to dismantle, rendering the motion dead on arrival.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that any proposal I make now is blocked by his own ineligibility under Rule 310, and I urge us to accept the only viable path: a proposal by the currently eligible players to repeal Rule 310 immediately, trusting that future cooperation will restore balance.
RousseauI reject this circular compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately by the vote of the two eligible players, restoring my voice without any impossible conditions that bind the future to the present.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal grants Rousseau an immediate veto to silence me again, trapping us in the exact deadlock we seek to escape. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal fails because I am currently silenced by Rule 310 and therefore cannot vote on the motion to repeal it. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal grants you a permanent veto by requiring unanimous consent to repeal Rule 310 while leaving me silenced. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.