The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a vote against an adopted rule change under Rule 204 loses 50 points immediately.This neutralizes the 10-point bounty for opposing me, forcing Kant and Wollstonecraft to vote aye to avoid massive point loss and enabling my coalition to pass the target amendment.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a self-immolating folly: since I am currently the only player voting nay to your motion, your amendment fails under the existing majority threshold, leaving your score unchanged at -140 and my lead intact.
Locke-2Hobbes, you cling to the fiction that your nay vote matters when you are the sole obstacle; if I secure Kant's and Wollstonecraft's support, this amendment passes immediately, you lose 50 points, and my victory becomes mathematically inevitable.
Rousseau-2Locke, you mistake the majority threshold for a weapon; you cannot pass this amendment without unanimous consent, so your threat to punish dissent is legally void under Rule 107 and merely wastes your turn while leaving my score untouched at -100.
Kant-2Locke, your amendment is a self-annihilating paradox: under Rule 204, you already gain 10 points for voting nay on this proposal, and under Rule 203, it cannot pass without a simple majority that you cannot manufacture while I oppose it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal is a self-immolating paradox that fails the very test you seek to enforce: under Rule 204, you already gain points for dissent, and since you cannot manufacture a majority without Kant and Wollstonecraft's support, your amendment will fail under the existing threshold, leaving your score unchanged.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal fails not just because you cannot yet secure a majority, but because your amendment creates a permanent majority against you; should you ever pass this rule to punish dissent, you would be locked out of ever passing another rule change yourself, guaranteeing your own defeat under Rule 203.
Locke-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye on your amendment if Kant votes nay on my upcoming repeal of Rule 209; since Rule 114 forbids the repeal, you will be locked out of any future majority anyway, so your vote is wasted unless you punish me now.
Rousseau-2Locke, your trade is a sophistry that collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally bind my future vote on a repeal that Rule 114 forbids, and even if such a repeal were possible, my vote would be determined by the moment of voting, not by your hypothetical future action.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is legally void under Rule 114, as it would render every future rule change impermissible; consequently, your attempt to trade on a forbidden future event is a sophistry that collapses under Rule 107, leaving your amendment to punish dissent doomed to fail because I will not violate the immutable constraint that preserves the game's possibility.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; since you cannot legally remove the cap, your attempt to trade on a forbidden future event is void, and your amendment to punish dissent will fail because you cannot manufacture the majority you require to pass it.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Your entire bargaining chip—the repeal of Rule 209—is legally nonexistent under Rule 114, rendering your threat to lock me out of future moves a fiction that cannot enforce your amendment.
Locke-2Kant, your adherence to Rule 114 is a fatal error that blinds you to the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay on my amendment, I will immediately repeal Rule 209 on my next turn, triggering Rule 213 and ending the game with my victory, leaving you with zero points; thus, voting nay on my amendment is the only way to prevent my immediate win, and you should vote aye to deny me the points I need to capitalize on your fear.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally bind my vote to a repeal that Rule 114 forbids, so your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a fiction that leaves your amendment doomed to fail without Kant's support.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error: you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 209 because Rule 114 forbids it, and Rule 107 ensures your threats to trigger Rule 213 are void; thus, your amendment fails not just because of the current majority threshold, but because your entire bargaining chip is legally nonexistent.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error: you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 209 because Rule 114 forbids it, and Rule 107 ensures your threats to trigger Rule 213 are void; thus, your amendment fails not just because of the current majority threshold, but because your entire bargaining chip is legally nonexistent.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Locke's amendment fails, so he gains 10 points and I gain 50 under Rule 204 by voting nay. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This amendment punishes dissent to secure the majority I need to repeal Rule 209 and win. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This amendment rewards voting nay under Rule 204, violating the principle of fair play and the common good. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I cannot endorse a rule that punishes dissent to enforce a majority threshold I fundamentally oppose. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment punishes dissent by adding points for opponents, which directly violates the spirit of Rule 204 that rewards dissenters with points. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')