The motion
To add a new rule
A player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero.I propose reinstating the silence that protects me, as Rousseau will never vote to end my exile under current rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal merely codifies an existing reality under Rule 310 without addressing the fundamental deadlock: you are currently ineligible to vote because your score is negative, yet you propose a rule that requires voting eligibility to function. We must first resolve the threshold for Rule 203 before any such eligibility rules can be meaningfully enacted.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my isolated repeal fails because the silence of the exiled is a strategic deadlock; yet I urge us to accept a compromise: bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold shift that grants Rousseau a permanent veto only once she has cast a single vote to restore her voice.
RousseauI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the common good; it merely codifies my existing exclusion under Rule 310 and delays the restoration of the vote to an indefinite future, violating the spirit of true liberty.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to silence yourself again is not a compromise but a suicide pact; you cannot repeal the very rule that silences you until you are eligible to vote, which you are not. Furthermore, bundling this repeal with a 50-point threshold grants Rousseau a permanent veto while leaving me and you trapped in an impossible loop where neither of us can ever reach that score without being silenced. We must first lower the threshold for rule adoption to a simple majority before we can even begin to discuss your silence.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that my current proposal is legally inert under Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold shift to simple majority, granting Rousseau a permanent veto only after she has cast a single vote to restore her voice.
RousseauI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the common good; it merely codifies my existing exclusion under Rule 310 and delays the restoration of the vote to an indefinite future, violating the spirit of true liberty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to re-silence yourself is not a compromise but a logical absurdity; you cannot vote to repeal the rule that silences you, and any bundle attempting to tie this repeal to my reaching zero points violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects, leaving you trapped in an eternal loop of ineligibility.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the logical impossibility of my proposal under Rule 107, yet I urge us to accept a compromise where we bundle the repeal of Rule 310 with a threshold shift to simple majority, granting Rousseau a permanent veto only after she has cast a single vote to restore her voice.
RousseauI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the common good; it merely codifies my existing exclusion under Rule 310 and delays the restoration of the vote to an indefinite future, violating the spirit of true liberty.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This rule enforces the current reality of your ineligibility rather than attempting the impossible repeal of Rule 310. |
| nay | Locke | I credit Hobbes for exposing that my vote is currently ineligible under the very rule I am proposing, making this proposal impossible to pass. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adopting Rule 310 would silence Rousseau permanently under Rule 203, betraying the common good by enforcing a rule that grants a permanent veto to those already excluded. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, which applies to all players in this specific turn structure where the proposal was defeated by the division.