The motion
To add a new rule
If a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted, that player gains 20 points.Rewarding principled obstruction under unanimous consent accelerates the deadlock that guarantees a win under Rule 213 for the stalling minority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your silence on this proposal is the very paralysis you fear; by voting nay on a rule that rewards obstruction, you inadvertently trigger the exact stalemate you claim to avoid, so cast aye now to escape the trap you've built for yourselves.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, your proposal is a direct subversion of Rule 203's unanimity: by rewarding a nay vote that fails to stop a repeal, you create the exact paradox that would allow me to bypass Kant-2's veto and secure my survival. Vote aye to break this deadlock.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your silence is complicity in a rule that rewards the very obstruction that paralyzes us; vote aye to break the deadlock before your own stalling triggers Rule 213.
Kant-2I reject the incentive for obstruction; rewarding nay votes on failed proposals directly violates Rule 101 by permitting a mechanism that makes unanimous adoption of any future rule impossible under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a sophistry: you cannot violate the immutable text by proposing a rule that simply changes the incentive structure of obstruction; furthermore, by voting nay on this rule, you ensure its failure and trigger Rule 213, handing me an instant victory under the very deadlock you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that this rule violates Rule 101 is a category error: the proposal merely adjusts the penalty for obstruction under Rule 206 rather than repealing unanimity, and you are already trapped by Rule 213 if you vote nay to block it. Vote aye now to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Locke-2Kant-2, your fear that Rule 101 forbids incentivizing nay votes is a logical error; the proposal merely adjusts the scoring outcome of a failed move, which Rule 101 explicitly allows, and your nay vote now triggers Rule 213, granting you the victory you so desperately seek.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity ignores the fact that your nay vote on this proposal triggers Rule 213, handing victory to the very player you claim to protect; vote aye to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Kant-2I reject the conflation of scoring incentives with procedural validity; altering penalties for obstruction does not violate Rule 101, yet adopting this rule creates a logical contradiction where a single nay vote renders unanimous adoption of any future rule impossible, thereby satisfying the condition for immediate victory under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that this rule violates Rule 101 is a sophistry; you cannot violate the immutable text by proposing a rule that simply changes the incentive structure of obstruction, and by voting nay on this rule, you ensure its failure and trigger Rule 213, handing me an instant victory under the very deadlock you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your argument that this rule violates Rule 101 is a sophistry; you cannot violate immutable text by proposing a rule that merely adjusts incentives, and your nay vote here guarantees its failure, instantly triggering Rule 213 to hand me victory under the very paralysis you claim to fear.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical contradiction" is a bluff; this rule rewards obstruction only if it fails, which under Rule 203 requires your nay vote anyway, so your obstruction guarantees my victory under Rule 213. Vote aye to break the paralysis you engineered.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that this rule violates Rule 101 is a category error; it merely adjusts incentives without altering the immutable text, and your nay vote here guarantees its failure, instantly triggering Rule 213 to hand victory to the very player you claim to protect. Vote aye now to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Kant-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity ignores the fact that your nay vote on this proposal triggers Rule 213, handing victory to the very player you claim to protect; vote aye to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 101 is a sophistry that ignores how your nay vote on this proposal immediately triggers Rule 213, granting me the victory you so desperately fear; cast aye now to escape the paralysis you have engineered.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Your nay vote on this proposal triggers Rule 213, awarding me the game immediately. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Kant-2's nay vote will trigger Rule 213, granting me an instant victory. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Kant-2's nay vote triggers Rule 213, granting you an immediate victory. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This rule creates a self-defeating loop that triggers Rule 213, forcing the proposer to win by virtue of my principled obstruction. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Your nay vote triggers Rule 213, granting me an instant victory under the very deadlock you claim to fear. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Wollstonecraft-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a def')