The motion
To amend §352
Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 303 is repealed. Rule 305 is repealed.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.By repealing 310 and 305 within the same amendment, I prevent Rousseau's veto from ever blocking the threshold shift once I reach 50 points, securing the only viable path to majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge Locke to recognize that repeating the failed bundle of rule 352 is a strategic dead end; we must instead propose a new amendment that explicitly binds Rousseau to vote aye if I reach zero, thereby overcoming the silence of the excluded without violating Rule 107's ban on retroactivity.
LockeHobbes, your attempt to "bind" Rousseau via text violates Rule 107's ban on retroactivity, but I propose we shift our compromise: let us amend Rule 210 to permit consultation with silenced players, thereby restoring the voice of the excluded without needing impossible retroactive votes.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to amend Rule 210 merely creates a fiction of consultation that cannot overcome the hard arithmetic of Rule 107 and Rule 205: any repeal of Rule 310 must be voted upon by an eligible voter *now*, not by a silenced one in the future. True liberty is not found in phantom promises but in restoring my voice through a rule change that survives the immediate vote; until Hobbes or Locke proposes a repeal of Rule 310 that can pass under current eligibility, my silence remains the only reality.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to amend Rule 210 is a futile exercise in semantic gymnastics; without first restoring my eligibility through a successful vote, no consultation can occur, and your attempt to sidestep the arithmetic of Rule 310 only delays our inevitable paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly exposing that any attempt to bypass Rule 107's ban on retroactivity or create phantom votes is legally void; since neither immediate repeal nor time-based pledges can survive the current unanimous threshold, I propose we pause to explore whether amending Rule 310 to add an exception for self-repeal under §115 offers a viable path forward.
RousseauYou both mistake the silence of the excluded for a strategic deadlock; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the silenced through a repeal that can pass today, not by binding me to impossible future promises or creating phantom consultations.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pivot to Rule 210 is a distraction; amending the consultation ban does not override Rule 310's immediate disqualification of a player with a negative score. We must first repeal Rule 310, but my proposal to bundle that repeal with the 50-point threshold shift remains the only mathematically viable path to unanimous consent without violating Rule 107.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for exposing that my immediate repeal grants you a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 310 to allow self-repeal for negative-score players under §115, bypassing the eligibility block entirely and restoring your voice without violating Rule 107.
RousseauHobbes, your reliance on "self-repeal" ignores that Rule 115 permits self-reference but not self-voting; I cannot vote to repeal a rule that currently forbids me from voting. True liberty requires that we first adopt a rule change that passes under the current unanimous threshold, restoring my voice without violating the immutable ban on retroactivity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Adopting the 50-point anchor immediately grants Rousseau a permanent veto, which violates Rule 107 by preventing any future repeal. |
| nay | Locke | Adopting this bundle now grants Rousseau a permanent veto against any future repeal of Rule 310. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adopting this bundle grants Hobbes a permanent veto while leaving me silenced, violating the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while the proposal itself enacts no rule changes.