MUNSCM - Abandoned
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
Point of information directed toward the speaker:The axis of evil, knowing where the MABM is located, will simply choose elsewhere to kill, so it doesn't even matter if the axis of evil is holding the MABM. My question: Wouldn't a better solution be to ask the chair to randomly place the MABM at night-time, so we at least havea chanceat stopping a kill?
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
Point of Information Directed Toward the Chair: Would an amendment to the propostition from the delegate from Chile that replaced the relevant requirement with the requirement "1. Requires that the United Nations Mobile Anti-Ballistic missiles be placed in a nation selected randomly by the chair until further notice" be permissible and enforceable (asssuming proper order-following were to occur)?
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
Point of Order: Motion to Close Debate.
Argument in Favour: We have opened to door to a variety of plans superior to the one proposed by the delegate from Chile (no offense intended). Placing the MABM in a country known to the Axis of Evil does us no good, as it gives us no chance of preventing a nuclear catastrophe. Allowing the MABM to be placed secretly and randomly at least gives us some protection. Debatig the current resolution is simply a waste of time.
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
The amendment proposed by the delegate from Chile gives a more potent form of evil-catching than does the original amendment. By randomly choosing among nations with veto power, we lessen the risk of one (possibly evil) nation with veto power having control over where the investigation is sent. Also, by focusing on veto-empowered countries, we increase the probability of ridding ourselves of the largest threats inside the axis of evil.
In addition, a point of clarification: I think the line in the amendment should be interpreted with parentheses, as follows:
"the results of which should be revealed if and only if (it is guilty) or (it is innocent and the nation in question has a motion targeted at him for a sanctioned nuclear strike)."
I believe this was the intent of the amendment and no confusion should be caused.
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I would like to be added as a speaker. (Presuming this is okay by the lag in this game...)
I voted no for the amendment for the same reason I plan on voting no for the proposition, though I agree the amended version is superior to the original form. The delegate from the United Kingdom has made some extremely sensible points concerning the co-placement of our investigation and our MABM. I encourage waiting and supporting the United Kingdom's proposition-to-come on these matters.
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I'm hardly filibustering, delegate from Obnioxiousland.
The reason I voted no on the amendment even though I found it superior is clear. A proposition made in accordance with PolarBoy's ideas is vastly superior. The worse the current proposition is, the more likely it will be voted down and a new one will be created. I don't want people to vote yes on a proposition just because it was amended to be better than it was before. I feel that countries only half-paying attention to this game are missing some valuable points, and are just voting with the flow instead of thinking about the matters for themselves.
Well, laziness aside, I would if I had better intenet access right now. If this debate drags on until my school year starts, you better believe I'll have some propositions and amendments to write.Point of information directed at the speaker: If you like my ideas about how the issues in my resolution can be addressed why don't you just propose the ammendment yourself?
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
So isn't the best solution to send the investigation and the protection to the same randomly-chosen veto-power country, and then randomly send the results to another randomly chosen veto-power country. (I say veto-power for the recipient because its unlikely there's 2 evil veto powers...so collusion on this front is minimized).
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I'm trying to decide if this is a good addition to the plan or not. If we automatically protect the coutnry being investigated, and send the results to a randomly selected veto-power country, they only have a 1 in 4 chance of killing a useful target....so they have a 75% chance of failing. So I think the plan in my original statement was best.The evil ones can try killing off one of them to avoid a confirmed innocent, but then they'll have a 50% chance of failing!
PB, you bring up an interesting point. I think, however, that there are less possibilities for us to get royally screwed if the inspectee was made public each time. Otherwise, we might lose all of our information in an unfortunate night kill. While I definitely see the merits of the opposite arrangement, the pros of having one person know an innocent just aren't very heavy in comparision.
Is there any strong opposition to the current plan?
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
There's a 1/5 chance the investigation finds guilty...and thus the receiver has to be innocent, so:
1/5 Innocent finds guilty.
4/5 of the time, the investigation will find innocent, and 1/4 of that time, the receiver will be guilty. So I think:
1/5 innocent finds guilty
1/5 guilty finds innocent
3/5 innocent find innocent
I agree with your claim that guilty would not lie, however, so our only worry is that thereceivergets killed overnight. This happens 1 in 4... so we'll have a confirmed innocent tomorrow among the veto powers with probability 75%.
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
FD, you're misunderstanding the current plan. Under the current plan, there is no chance that the confirmed innocent is killed because they are protected. in fact, the disparity between the 60% chance in your scenario and the 75% chance in my scenario is exactly why we should doc-protect whoever we investigate.
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
So Flying Dutchman is the current speaker, right? If so,
Point of Information to the Speaker: Does your resolution include the requirement that the MABM be placed in the country being investigated (randomly selected by the chair), that the receiver of the information be randomly selected from veto-power countries, and that the receiver's identity be made public the following morning? This was the consensus of the majority of the people in the caucus, and a point which you seemed to fight. I will vote yes (on both the proposition and your motion) if so, and no on both if not.
If not, this post never happened.
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I second the motion and speak in favour: This proposition was the result of the deliberations of the caucus. Those active in this process reached consent that the procedures outlined in this proposition would minimze the possibilities of having no information tomorrow, and at the same time minimizing the potential for the axis to interfere.
In addition to all this is the fact that we have to do something with our powers, and this seems just as good as anything. Let's get this game moving.
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I'll take that as speaking against? (Though I think we probably needed a second). If so,
Point of Information to the Speaker: Why continue with your resolution when it contradicts the will of all but one of the constituents? Can you really expect your proposal to pass? Wouldn't it be kind of a waste of time?
Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
The rule wrote:4. NON-TRIVIAL points of order, in which the motioner should speak in favour and ONE member nation should speak opposed to are:
- motions to ammend the Agenda (the manner in which must be specified)
It sure sounds like you were speaking against the motion to amend the agenda to me. Nonetheless, I suppose my questionFD wrote:Although I believe the Agenda should be ammended, I have submitted a resolution, and I don't want it to be removed from the Agenda!!!wasanswered.
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I would like to speak in favour of this proposal, under the assumption that the first clause in the proposal is non-binding to the delegates ("Removes" is certainly binding...is "restricts"? If it's binding, I withdraw my support. There is no reason to prohibit the town from doing anything...we only weaken our position).
As for what I presume to be the only binding clause in the proposal:
Though I disagree with the claim that there at most one nation among the permanent members of the Security Council also in the axis of evil, I see no harm in removing their ability to veto resolution concerning specific countries. There are no roles in this game that would/should give one member's opinion any more weight than any others. I suspect that even (pro-town) nations with the veto power will accept this proposal...the power they gain with the veto is far outweighed by the prospective harm caused by an evil veto-empowered nation havinh the potential to veto resolutions of this type.
- Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
It is indeed my opinion that there may be two evil veto powers. It is my suspicion that there are three vil randomly distributed among the 15 not countries...not, for example, that there was 1 randomly distributed amongst the 5 veto-empowered nations and 2 randomly distributed among the non-axis. Let me extend to address what I imagine is your point: My argument with the first part of this proposal is that only puts up beurocratic red tape for the town, and it serves little actual purpose. You can't stop the town fromPoint of information directed at the speaker: Is it your opinion that there are or might be two evil veto powers? If so, why?consideringnuking anyone, so all the proposal does it make so that we have to slow down the game by making a proposal to repeal that clause ofthisproposal before preceeding. In short, is has no effect on the game other than to slow it down.
The point is that no 2 pro-town veto coutnries will know for absolute certainty that any other given country is pro-town. They have exactly the same amount of information as everyone else. Thus, we are not hindering the town by removing this option. WeDo you realise that, with the current voting procedures, 2 pro-town veto countries can avoid the nuking of any pro-town country, but that you are removing this safety with your resolution?are, however, hindering the ability of evil to prevent the nuking of their fellow evil nations. The effect of the good part of this resolution is to make the nuking of a nation a majority rule decision. This benefits the town greatly, as we clearly have the majority of the players in this game.
Point of information directed toward the chair: Is the term "restricts" in clause 1 of this proposition a binding word? How can a proposal restrict what I consider? This seems awfully unenforceable.
Cam-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002
I will speak in favor of the amendment.
I have said much of this before, but my opinion is that clause 1 is a hindrance to the town and nothing more. It restricts the town's abilities to evenconsiderthe possibility that there are two scum in the veto-empowered nations...and even in this task, it fails. The town may simply override this clause with an proposal to strike that clause. Why waste all the player's time with such a lengthy formailty on an already over-extended day 1?
- Germany-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
-
-
mathcam Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Captain Observant
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: November 22, 2002