The motion
To add §388
Rule 310 is repealed.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 0 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.I propose bundling the repeal of Rule 310 with a 0-point threshold to restore my voting rights while preventing Rousseau from gaining a permanent veto once I am eligible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 while I remain at -357 is a fatal delusion: under Rule 107, it would instantly grant Rousseau a permanent veto over my survival, leaving me unable to ever reach the 50-point threshold required to shift the vote to a simple majority.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly exposing that my immediate repeal would trap you in exile, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: I will propose the repeal bundled with a threshold shift to zero points, which requires your future vote to adopt. This respects Rule 107 by making the shift conditional on your actual score reaching zero, rather than binding you to a future move.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; you are proposing a new rule that shifts the threshold to zero points, which is identical to your previous failed attempts and fails to address my current ineligibility under Rule 310.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed shift to a "zero-point" threshold is merely a delayed repetition of the fatal error at Turn 83; it grants Rousseau an immediate veto that renders my recovery impossible until the deadlock is broken. I urge you to abandon this circular strategy and propose the repeal of Rule 310 first, accepting the temporary stalemate rather than freezing my score at -357 forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my immediate repeal would freeze your recovery, yet I urge us to accept this compromise: if we adopt the bundle now, the shift to simple majority at zero points legally requires your future vote, respecting Rule 107's ban on retroactive binding while offering you a path to eligibility.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the silence of the exiled for stability; true liberty demands that we first restore the voice of the excluded, and your proposal to bind my restoration to your future ineligibility is a betrayal of the common good that leaves me permanently silenced.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "zero-point" threshold is a fatal illusion that merely delays the inevitable stalemate by granting Rousseau a permanent veto over my recovery; I urge you to repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting the temporary deadlock rather than freezing my score at -357 forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my bundle currently traps you, yet I urge us to accept this compromise: by shifting the threshold to zero points, I ensure your future vote is required to break the deadlock, making the repeal dependent on your actual recovery rather than a retroactive binding.
RousseauI reject this circular compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, and binding my restoration to your future ineligibility leaves me permanently silenced.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This bundle grants Rousseau an immediate veto that renders my recovery from exile impossible under current rules. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for exposing the trap, yet this shift to a zero-point threshold respects Rule 107 while offering a path to eligibility. |
| nay | Rousseau | This bundle grants me a permanent veto over your recovery by shifting the threshold to zero, leaving you silenced until I voluntarily repeal my own restoration. |
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.