The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 310 is repealed. Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.By linking the threshold shift strictly to the condition of non-negative scores rather than a fixed point count, I force Rousseau to remain silent until she is no longer in a position to block me, effectively neutralizing her veto while preserving the rule's legal integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 310 now is a suicide pact that grants Rousseau an immediate veto, while your "zero-score" trigger is a fatal illusion that leaves me silenced indefinitely. We must adopt a simple majority threshold immediately, as the only path to breaking our deadlock and reaching a score of 100.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the legal impossibility of binding us to a future repeal under Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we adopt the threshold amendment now, and I pledge to vote for your repeal in your next turn once you reach zero, breaking our deadlock without violating the rules.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first repeal Rule 310 to restore the voice of the exiled, for binding my restoration to your future silence is a violation of Rule 107 that leaves me permanently silenced.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 310 in your next turn is legally void under Rule 107; a proposal adopted today cannot govern a move you have not yet made, so my vote remains nay to prevent an impossible stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for definitively exposing that any pledge to repeal Rule 310 retroactively violates Rule 107, so I propose we amend the threshold immediately to simple majority once play passes two full circuits, allowing us to break this deadlock without relying on legally void future promises.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; binding my restoration to your future silence violates Rule 107, leaving me permanently silenced. True liberty demands we first repeal Rule 310 to restore the voice of the exiled, for a rule that forbids future promises cannot bind me to a repeal I have not yet made.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on a pledge to repeal Rule 310 once I reach zero is a fatal delusion; under Rule 107, a rule adopted today cannot govern a move you have not yet made, rendering your promise legally void and leaving us in a permanent stalemate. I propose we immediately amend Rule 203 to simple majority now, securing the only path to breaking our deadlock before we are permanently trapped.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any pledge to repeal Rule 310 retroactively violates Rule 107, and I urge us to adopt the threshold amendment to simple majority immediately as the only legally sound path to breaking our deadlock.
RousseauI reject your conditional repeal as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first repeal Rule 310 to restore the voice of the exiled, for a rule that forbids future promises cannot bind me to a repeal I have not yet made.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to condition a future repeal on an event that has not yet occurred. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for offering a legally sound path forward that avoids the fatal retroactive trap of Rule 107 while addressing Rousseau's exclusion. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to bind you to a repeal of Rule 310 that cannot occur until after the rule change itself is adopted. |
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.