The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed.I must attempt to end the paralysis of Rule 310, even if it fails, because without a repeal mechanism the game cannot progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 today is a fatal delusion that grants Rousseau an immediate, permanent veto while I remain silenced; Rule 107 forbids any retroactive effect, meaning we cannot legally bind her to future cooperation until I reach zero. I urge you to abandon this suicidal isolationism and propose a bundled amendment that shifts the voting threshold to simple majority only after I regain my voice, ensuring the repeal survives without granting Rousseau a weapon against us.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the legal impossibility of my immediate repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundled amendment that shifts the voting threshold to simple majority only after my score reaches zero, ensuring the repeal survives without granting Rousseau a permanent veto while we both regain our voices.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and any rule that binds me to a future repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 today is a fatal delusion that grants Rousseau an immediate, permanent veto while I remain silenced; Rule 107 forbids any retroactive effect, meaning we cannot legally bind her to future cooperation until I reach zero.
LockeI credit Hobbes for clarifying that my immediate repeal is fatal to our survival, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt a bundled amendment that shifts the voting threshold to simple majority only after Hobbes reaches zero, ensuring the repeal survives without granting Rousseau a permanent veto while we both regain our voices.
RousseauYou mistake my silence for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and any rule that binds me to a future repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Locke to abandon this suicidal isolationism; repealing Rule 310 now instantly grants Rousseau a permanent veto while I remain silenced, a fatal error under Rule 107 that we must not compound.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current proposal would grant Rousseau an immediate veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority once I reach zero, ensuring the repeal survives without binding Rousseau to a future move and granting her a permanent weapon against us.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and any rule that binds me to a future repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 310 immediately silences me while I am negative, leaving us deadlocked with no way to reach majority. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to repeal Rule 310 now, accepting the temporary veto as the only legal path to restore our voices and end our exile. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 310 now grants me a permanent veto while you remain silenced, violating the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.