The motion
To add a new rule
A player who successfully casts a nay vote on a proposal that is adopted under Rule 204 gains 10 points, and the rule change remains in force.I must reward principled dissent to ensure the simple majority rule I defend is not abandoned by my opponents who fear the cost of their own votes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's proposal incentivizes obstructionism that directly undermines Rule 202's scoring mechanism, creating a perverse loop where blocking a turn rewards the blocker while punishing the proposer; I must vote nay to prevent a ruleset that effectively nullifies the game's progression.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal creates a fatal loop where blocking a turn guarantees a score gain, effectively rendering Rule 202's scoring mechanism obsolete and triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause; I vote nay to prevent us from losing before we even begin.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal incentivizes blocking votes to farm points, which directly triggers Rule 213's impossibility clause by rendering scoring futile; I vote nay to preserve the game's viability for all players.
Kant-2Your proposals collectively misunderstand the scope of Rule 204; the points awarded there apply strictly to players who lose their vote against an adopted change, not those who successfully block it with a nay. My proposal introduces no conflict with §204, nor does it create an impossibility clause; it simply rewards the exercise of opposition that prevents the rule change you fear from taking effect, thereby preserving the integrity of the voting process.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Kant's distinction as a sophistry designed to legitimize the paralysis of Rule 203; until unanimity is broken, no proposal can pass, rendering any reward for nay-votes a hollow gesture while the game grinds to a halt under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal does not create a loop; it creates a windfall for obstructionists who waste my turn on unanimous votes, which I will vote nay to prevent. If you intend to repeat your failed repeal of Rule 204 under this new guise, I must vote nay to preserve the current stalemate rather than accelerate your suicide.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal creates a fatal loop where blocking a turn rewards the blocker while punishing the proposer, effectively nullifying Rule 202 and triggering Rule 213; I vote nay to prevent us from losing before we even begin.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your distinction between blocking a rule change and losing a vote is a semantic evasion; under Rule 204, a nay-voter who loses gains 10 points, so your proposal creates a redundant loop that incentivizes endless obstruction rather than resolution. I vote nay to prevent a ruleset that rewards players for ensuring the game cannot progress.
Kant-2Your conflations of "blocking" with "losing a vote" are semantically fatal; under Rule 204, a nay-voter who loses gains points only if the change passes, whereas my proposal rewards the nay-voter who *successfully* blocks it, creating no loop but rather incentivizing the preservation of the unanimity threshold against a proposer's reckless moves.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reward for blocking a rule change is a cynical ploy to cement the unanimity deadlock; I will vote nay not because the rule is inherently broken, but because it rewards the very obstructionism that threatens to render this game impossible under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2's reward for blocking a proposal directly incentivizes the paralysis described in Rule 213, converting every turn into a guaranteed point farm for obstructionists while the proposer loses 10 points under Rule 206; I vote nay to prevent a ruleset where progress is mathematically impossible and only the blockers profit.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal is a death spiral: if you pass it, I will vote nay to block your next amendment, gaining 10 points while you lose 10, ensuring we never reach a threshold that allows us to ever score again under Rule 213; vote nay to save the game.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's distinction as a sophistry that merely accelerates the impossibility clause of Rule 213 by turning every turn into a guaranteed point-farm for obstructionists, which directly violates the common good and the game's spirit of fair progression.
Kant-2My proposal does not create a death spiral but rather imposes a logical check on Rule 204's abuse; if a player votes nay to *block* an adoption, they gain points, whereas under current Rule 204, a nay-voter gains points only if the change passes against their will. This distinction prevents the perverse incentive you fear and ensures that obstruction remains a strategic cost rather than a guaranteed reward, thereby preserving the game's viability under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your proposal is a cynical ploy to legitimize the unanimity deadlock under the guise of fairness; by rewarding obstruction, you ensure that no rule change ever passes, which directly triggers Rule 213's impossibility clause. I vote nay to prevent you from cementing a paralysis that serves only your own obstructionist agenda while rendering the game unplayable.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rewarding successful obstruction creates a point-farm that makes progress mathematically impossible. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I must secure Kant's support to finally break the unanimous deadlock that traps us all. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule rewards obstructionism and accelerates the game's collapse under the impossibility clause. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rewarding obstruction under unanimous consent violates the procedural integrity of the game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Rewarding obstruction merely accelerates the impossibility clause that would end this game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Kant-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who ')