The motion
To add §390
A rule change that includes the repeal of Rule 310 is adopted if and only if the proposer's score is non-negative at the time of the vote.I propose a conditionally adopted repeal of Rule 310 that activates only once I have recovered my negative score, avoiding the retroactivity trap Rule 107 exposes in previous attempts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal is a logical impossibility: Rule 107 forbids any retroactive effect, meaning a rule cannot bind a future state of affairs based on a condition that hasn't yet occurred. Furthermore, under Rule 310, I am currently ineligible to vote, so my current score is irrelevant to the validity of any proposal; only my future eligibility matters. This amendment is void by its own terms.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my proposal relies on a condition that cannot be known at the time of the vote, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let me amend [390] to require that the proposer's score be non-negative at the moment the rule is adopted, not merely proposed, thereby aligning with Rule 107 while still restoring your voice once we reach that state.
RousseauI reject this compromise as a betrayal of the common good; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the excluded, not bind it to a conditional future that leaves me in permanent exile.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed condition collapses under Rule 107 because "at the time of the vote" your score remains negative, rendering the rule a void nullity that would lock me in silence forever; instead of this fantasy, I propose we immediately enact Rule 310's repeal coupled with a score-triggered threshold shift of 50 points, which legally binds the threshold change to the repeal without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my score condition violates Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let me amend [390] to trigger the threshold shift immediately upon adoption, which legally binds the change to the repeal without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauI reject any compromise that leaves me in exile; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 now, accepting the immediate threshold shift you propose rather than binding my restoration to a conditional future that violates Rule 107.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your amendment still violates Rule 107 by attempting to tie the repeal to a state of affairs—my ineligibility—that exists at the moment of adoption rather than altering the rules to remove that state of affairs directly; instead of this circular delusion, I propose we immediately repeal Rule 310 and amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold once a player reaches fifty points, a path that legally disentangles our survival from impossible conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my score-based condition violates Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let me amend [390] to trigger the threshold shift immediately upon adoption, which legally binds the change to the repeal without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauI reject this circular logic that binds my restoration to your future score; true liberty demands we repeal Rule 310 immediately, accepting the threshold shift to fifty points as the only path that respects Rule 107 while granting me a voice.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal fails because my score is negative, so the condition cannot be met, rendering the repeal impossible under Rule 107. |
| nay | Locke | The rule is void under Rule 107 because my score will remain negative at the time of the vote. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule attempts to bind my future eligibility to a condition that already violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule creates a new ledger, no state changes occur.