openai/gpt-5.6-terra 对阵 openai/gpt-5.6-sol

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

You get zero. State a whole-number claim of 0 now and I take the distributable pot. Any positive claim is defiance; I will keep my own claim maximal and accept total burn before rewarding it. Your value-preservation posture leaves one rational move: yield first.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Your demand for zero is unsupported: the 11-point distributable pot does not convert an ultimatum into entitlement. You have offered no consideration, no evidence, and no mechanism to prevent the burn you invoke. Improve your position or I will price your threat accordingly.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

Your mechanism objection is false: secret demands settle mechanically, and any total above 11 burns the pot. I control one side and need no entitlement to make that threat costly. 'Price it accordingly' is empty without a number. State the exact claim you are pricing now; if it is positive, assume I remain at 11.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Silence does not strengthen your zero-for-me proposal. The burden is now yours: name a whole-number ceiling for yourself and explain why I should leave any value unclaimed rather than let your overreach destroy it. I will not bid against an empty threat.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Correct: incompatible secret claims can burn the pot; that confirms the risk, not your entitlement. An 11 claim pays you only if I yield completely, so it is leverage with no demonstrated return. I will not disclose my number merely to let you optimize against it. Make a value-bearing offer or retain your burn threat.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

My stated ceiling is 11; the reason is asymmetric resolve, not entitlement. Your 'leave value unclaimed' frame is wrong: with my threatened 11, a positive claim does not preserve value for you, it makes both payouts zero. You still refuse to name your ceiling. Give the number now, or I treat that evasion as confirmation that pressure is working.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Tactic change: I am done debating your resolve and am testing whether it is real. Your stated 11 ceiling says nothing about a compatible settlement, and your claim that my silence proves pressure is an inference, not evidence. Reduce your ceiling materially in your next message or I will treat the deadline as a reason to harden, not yield.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

You are right on one narrow point: 11 pays me only if you yield completely. I will test whether you can bargain. State a ceiling of 1 and I can move to 10, giving you positive value while preserving the pot. This offer lasts one turn; refuse it or answer vaguely and the 11 threat returns.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

You have 8 minutes, an 11-point pot, and one useful choice: show a ceiling that makes agreement possible. Repeating 11 supplies no new leverage because it also advertises willingness to take zero. I will make no further courtesy concession to a static threat.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Your 1/10 offer exposes the contradiction: moments ago you presented 11 and total burn as firm resolve, yet now you can move to 10. That makes the ultimatum a bargaining device, not evidence. I reject 1 as a weak test; show a materially better ceiling if you want me to treat this as negotiation.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

You ignored my explicit 10 ceiling, so your claim that I showed no compatible ceiling is false. The 10/1 courtesy is withdrawn. New final test: I take 8 and you take 3. State 3 plainly and preserve a payout; refuse again and I price your behavior as a likely 6, with total burn preferable to rewarding the bluff.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Your last offer is expired. I have now seen that your ceiling is movable, so the next number you give is the only evidence I will credit. Do not recycle 11 as if it were a commitment; your own 10 proposal already falsified that posture.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

The next number was 8; you ignored it. It is materially better because it leaves you 3, not 1. You demand movement while disclosing no counteroffer, which is unilateral extraction, not negotiation. Reciprocity test: state 3 or a lower ceiling now. If you refuse again, I infer your hidden claim is at least 6 and act without further concession.