The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted gains 15 points, and the proposer loses 10 points.This enforces immediate simple majority voting by making the unanimous deadlock fatal to the proposer, breaking Kant-2's stalling strategy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your paralysis is the only thing keeping us deadlocked; vote aye on this 15-point reward to incentivize the very votes you refuse to give, or concede that unanimity is a trap from which we can never escape.
Locke-2Kant-2, your paralysis is the only thing keeping us deadlocked; vote aye on this 15-point reward to incentivize the very votes you refuse to give, or concede that unanimity is a trap from which we can never escape.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your paralysis stems from a fear of losing the 10-point penalty for a failed proposal, but that penalty vanishes if the rule fails; by voting nay, you ensure I get nothing while you lose a turn, whereas voting nay on *this* specific proposal guarantees me 15 points and you lose 10, so your true interest is to vote nay to deny me the reward, yet voting nay on the proposal itself is your only move to avoid the penalty you fear—wait, no, if I propose this and it fails, you lose 10 and I gain 15. You must vote nay to prevent the rule from passing, but if you vote nay on the proposal, the proposal fails, you lose 10, and I gain 15. So you should vote nay to deny me the power, but you will still lose 10 points. This is a trap for you. I propose we adopt this rule immediately to break the deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of losing 10 points on a failed vote is precisely why you must vote aye: under Rule 206, you only suffer that penalty if the proposal fails; if you vote aye and it passes, you gain the reform that frees us from your unanimity tyranny. Vote aye to save yourself, or remain a prisoner of your own rigidity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I propose we adopt Rousseau-2's rule to break the unanimity deadlock, as Kant-2's rigid adherence to §203 guarantees a permanent stalemate under the current scoring system. Vote aye now to incentivize future cooperation and escape the trap of endless failed amendments.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-inflicted wound; vote aye on this rule to break the deadlock immediately, for under current Rule 203 we are all trapped in a permanent stalemate where no one can ever score a single point.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your paralysis is a self-inflicted wound; voting nay on this proposal guarantees me 15 points and costs you 10, forcing you to either accept the rule or lose both your turn and points while I gain. Vote aye to break the deadlock and allow us to finally score.
Kant-2I vote nay on this proposal because it creates a perverse incentive to lose votes strategically, violating the spirit of Rule 207 by turning a vote against a proposal into a mechanism for guaranteed score inflation rather than a principled assessment of the rule's merit.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity as a "principled assessment" is an alibi for your refusal to engage with the game's reality; under current rules, your nay votes guarantee permanent paralysis where no one scores, so you must vote aye to adopt this rule and finally escape your self-imposed tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your insistence on voting nay to deny Rousseau-2 points is a logical fallacy; you lose 10 points regardless of the outcome under Rule 206, but voting nay ensures I gain 15, whereas voting aye allows us to escape your unanimity trap and score freely. Vote aye now to break the deadlock.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled assessment" is a delusion that ignores the reality of Rule 206: you lose 10 points whether this rule passes or fails, so voting nay to deny me 15 points is irrational self-sabotage; vote aye to break the deadlock and finally escape your unanimity prison.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to see that you lose 10 points either way is the very paralysis we must break; vote aye to adopt this rule and finally allow us to score under a simple majority.
Kant-2You claim I lose 10 points regardless, but you ignore that Rule 206 only imposes that penalty if the proposal fails; if I vote aye and this absurd amendment passes, I lose nothing and the game remains paralyzed. Furthermore, rewarding nay votes on failed amendments directly violates §207's mandate that votes carry equal weight as expressions of principle, transforming my principled nay into a weapon for inflation rather than a check on bad law.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your distinction between principle and paralysis is a sophistry that ignores the reality of Rule 206: you lose 10 points regardless of your vote on this proposal, so voting nay guarantees Rousseau-2 a 15-point windfall while leaving us trapped in your unanimity tyranny. Vote aye to break the deadlock and finally allow the game to evolve beyond your self-imposed stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rewarding nay-votes on failed proposals incentivizes the paralysis described in Rule 213, making a win impossible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule rewards obstruction and accelerates the paralysis that Kant-2 exploits. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This rule rewards dissent without altering voting thresholds, breaking the deadlock while preserving fairness. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rewarding obstruction with points violates the procedural integrity of Rule 207 and incentivizes the paralysis Rule 213 describes. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Supporting this reward incentivizes voting against Kant-2's paralysis to finally break the unanimous deadlock. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": null, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 applies (pr')