MUNSCM - Abandoned

[the silent speaker]

Good day, gentlemen.

Benin votes

against

closing debate.

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the entire Security Council:

Where the hell is everybody?

[the silent speaker]

Benin has some reservations to the resolution as worded, but as debate is closed, will have to

abstain

.

[the silent speaker]

Everything depends on France now. Maybe you should poke bloojay?

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the chair:

How does one go about proposing an amendment to a motion?
As long as I'm asking things anyway,

Point of information directed at the chair:

Is the list of verbs used in MUNSCM 000 exhaustive, or is a resolution or amendment to same valid with any present-tense English verb? Can a clause state, for example,

Prohibits

members of the Axis of Evil from voting; or

Allots

the country of Benin fifteen investigations nightly, a quintuple vote and veto power; or

Worships

the delegate from Benin as a god?

[the silent speaker]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Benin votes

against

this motion but will post a similar one should it fail.

[the silent speaker]

Delegate from Germany, why are you voting on a resolution?

[the silent speaker]

Benin wishes to be added to the speaker's list.

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed to the chair:

Assuming this resolution passes, what happens next? I.e. what is the legal force of a "strong suggestion" to destroy a country?

[the silent speaker]

(Public service announcement: I am Sabbath observant and will not ever be posting between Friday evening and Saturday night New York time. I will try to post Friday afternoons and Saturday nights, but depending on convenience factors it is possible for me to have stretches of Thursday to Sunday without posts. These should not be construed as lurks or neglect but as quirks of schedule.)

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed to the speaker:

How is it that you were "not aware" of one of the most fundamental rules, and possibly the most often repeated, of the game's mechanics? Also, why the vitriol indicated in your response to the delegate from France? "I will see you all in hell" hardly speaks of your goodwill toward this body. As the resolution stands your country isn't even in any danger -- refer to the chair's response to the pertinent question.

[the silent speaker]

Benin votes

against

closing debate.

[the silent speaker]

Wrong motion, United Kingdom.

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes against

this motion.

[the silent speaker]

As my home computer is screaming and I do not anticipate having access to the school computers any time between tomorrow afternoon and Sunday night, I am going to post my speech now. That way, the most immediate points of information will not have a three-day wait for responses.

On the fitness of Romania for nuclear strike:

There are some good grounds for this action: the delegate from Romania's motion to close debate on a resolution which, it should be patently obvious to all, is utterly useless without some kind of amendment, comes immediately to mind. This seems to indicate a wish that the resolution be passed in its useless form, to be a nonaction quickly forgotten. But this is only the latest in a series.
Mr. ZONEACE has asserted of late that his apparent disregard of the rule that countries may not veto their own annihilation is the result of ignorance of the rules. After seventeen pages, I find this most unlikely; further, in speaking on MUNSCM 003 and proposing his recent motion he demonstrated that he does, indeed, know the rules. What is more, during caucus he said this:

I am going to have to agree with mathcam on this one. To give the power of Veto to 2 evil countries seems a bit, well insane and unbalanced.

This post clearly entertains the concept of

one

evil veto country, and indicates awareness of the inherent flaw in the existence of

two

-- or, possibly, knowledge to the effect that the countries with power of veto have more power than the rest of us are aware. Either he has contradicted himself, or he has knowledge that Romania should not possess.
The delegate from Romania, as mentioned above, spoke on MUNSCM 003. The entire thrust of his speech was that "I just don't see any of the Big 5 being members of the axis of evil", and on the strength of his not seeing, we should obliterate almost the whole point of the resolution! If his arguments had carried the day, we would be inspecting a random country, likelier than not a "Big 5" nonmember, in blind trust that all of the "Big 5" are good -- and at the same time keeping our MABM away from the same countries in which blind trust is supposedly being placed. And then he

immediately stepped down

. After dropping this bombshell, the delegate from Romania did not even allow us the chance for points of information from him. Was he concerned that points of information would trip up his facade of being helpful to the United Nations? I think so.
Don't get me wrong; it is entirely possible that all three members of the Axis of Evil are temporary members rather than one of them being permanent. But the other way around is equally possible, and all our eggs should not be in either basket. The delegate from Romania's attempts to wangle our eggs not only into one basket but the more potentially catastrophic of the two, and his extreme vehemence on the subject, I find most worrying. Equally worrying, almost as soon as I pointed out that the current resolution puts his country in no immediate danger, he moved to close debate on it lest it be improved. It should be noted, though, that I am confused at the delegate from the Philippines' assertion that Mr. ZONEACE has been "protecting the veto-powered countries", and intend to inquire about it when it is the Philippines' turn to speak; it seems to me that Mr. ZONEACE has been doing precisely the opposite of protecting said countries, or at least the innocent ones as the Axis of Evil is hardly in danger of nuking itself, and indeed this is a point of concern for me.

On the advisability of attempting to nuke Romania at this time:

There is an amendment which I would like to propose, but I am under the impression that having made a speech, I must request a second placement on the speakers' list, and at any rate I think the Chair would not appreciate it if I proposed an amendment while a motion was technically on the floor. My amendment will attempt to address the following problem: either we choose to target veto-powered countries or we choose to target countries not so empowered. I think no one here needs to be convinced that on this first day of the crisis the first "option" is a Very Bad Idea. This leaves us with nonempowered countries -- but to lynch one such, we must first put blind faith in there being no evil among the Permanent Members, for if any one of them is evil, that country can simply veto its fellow evildoer's destruction. It follows that if any one of the Permanent Members are evil, we can destroy only the innocent until we have found the traitorous Permanent Member. My amendment will attempt to find a way out of this cruel paradox, and I will propose it at the Security Council's earliest convenience, but unless the Chair informs me otherwise, that time is not now.
(

Point of information directed at the Chair:

May I propose an amendment (once voting on the current motion is done) having spoken as I just have, or must I wait until my turn on the speaker's list comes around again?)
I now stand for points of information.

[the silent speaker]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fortunately it appears that this computer is functioning again.
Delegate from the United Kingdom, of course the Axis of Evil will not automatically veto resolutions to destroy their fellows if those fellows blunder so flagrantly that nonsuspicion of them is itself damning, or if the resolution is the result of a weapons report or the like. However, most of the time and particularly on this first day there will be few situations where such a veto would not be in the best interests of the Axis.

[the silent speaker]

Delegate from Pakistan, your proposed amendment is premature and insufficient. Certainly something of the sort will be necessary before debate is closed on MUNSCM 007, but a far more pressing problem is the fact that any country we successfully destroy is almost certainly innocent by the very fact that we were allowed to destroy it.

[the silent speaker]

Delegate from Germany, there are three countries in the Axis of Evil. If one of them has veto power and we are not voting for it, it can exercise that power or not as it sees fit. It is not, assuming its delegates are sane, going to vote in favor of its allies' destruction without a very, very good reason. Therefore, the fact that such a country, if it exists, is voting in favor of a country among the temporaries is an indication that that temporary is not its ally -- but we cannot lynch

anyone

unless the Axis with veto accedes to it.
This does not apply if we are voting on a veto-powered Axis country, but one, Romania isn't, and two, we shouldn't be voting on veto-powered countries at all yet.

Point of information directed to the Chair:

Are countries named in resolutions prohibited from

voting

on them, as implied by the delegate from Germany, or are they merely denied power of

veto

, with their vote counting as if they were temporary members?

[the silent speaker]

Delegate from the United Kingdom, we would first have to pass a motion to reconsider MUNSCM 003 and then propose an amendment to it. A superseding resolution could work, that is true, but consider the ramifications: if we investigate, say, the UK for vetoing MUNSCM 007, we must also, per MUNSCM 003, send them MABMs. Thus the Axis can target anyone but the UK and know they will score a hit. Allowing the inspections to be based on something inferrable in-thread tells the Axis who not to target (or that all targets are safe because they have the MABMs); the whole point of MUNSCM 003 in the first place was to avoid the Axis' knowing who is investigated for precisely this reason. Resolving to send inspectors to Romania would be even worse; it would be MUNSCM 001 all over again.
Additionally, such an amendment implicitly presupposes that the Permanent Members would only veto a lynch if they are protecting their scum allies. Surely some might sincerely believe in the target country's innocence and refuse to sign off on their destruction for that reason. (Okay, it may be a valid presupposition in Romania's case, but it isn't a precedent we are best served in setting.)

[the silent speaker]

Delegate from the United States, I have already agreed that if they feel it necessary, the Axis might well sacrifice an Axis member. I merely point out that if they veto, we have no way of knowing that they

are

protecting an Axis member rather than vetoing because they sincerely believe the target nation innocent. Both people and nations have been wrongly suspected before -- quite often for excellent reasons. And people often refuse to believe, both accurately and not so much, that the suspicions of the majority are valid. The Axis's choices are not likely to be sacrifice their fellow or be outed themselves with no third option. If they do find themselves in such a position, such as if the country in question had been investigated, I am sure they would have no compunction for letting go the less powerful Axis nation to protect the more powerful, but refusal to annihilate a country is not prima facie evidence of

lack

of respect for human life.

[the silent speaker]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The delegate from Benin had thought that his response to the amendment proposed by the delegate from Pakistan qualified as "speaking against", but that's neither here nor there.
Delegate from the United Kingdom, you seem to be suggesting a major overhaul of your own resolution. If this is not what you meant, please clarify. If it

is

what you meant, this delegate believes less drastic measures will serve, at least for the time being. We can always, after all, reconsider MUNSCM 003 if the current lines of discussion fail.

[the silent speaker]

If there are no further questions, the delegate from Benin steps down.

[the silent speaker]

Benin wishes to be added to the speakers' list.

[the silent speaker]

The delegate from Benin wishes to speak against this amendment. My primary concern is that, according to the Chair's clarification, it has no provisions that will be effective to prevent the Axis of Evil from vetoing a lynch of one of its own (assuming it has a member with veto power) while letting slide a lynch of innocents. Secondarily, I believe the word "requires" is a bit overused and "Directs a nuclear strike at Romania" would be a better phrasing; albeit, this is a semantic difference only.
However, Benin also requests to be removed from the Speakers' list, as the amendment I intended to propose would also be ineffective per the Chair's most recent clarification.

Point of information directed at the Chair:

Suppose we voted on the resolution, with this amendment passing, clause by clause, and the second clause passed while the first one failed. What would happen then?

[the silent speaker]

It could. Indeed a second resolution is probably the only way to go. But we have to create the second resolution

before

voting on MUNSCM 007, which means we will need a motion to shelve as soon as we reach the end of the Speakers' list. This amendment or one like it can be considered just as easily the second time MUNSCM 007 comes around as the first.
Benin, for the sake of consistency (I

have

just spoken against this amendment, after all) votes

against

but is not particularly worried about the consequences of it passing. The amendment is insufficient and therefore at this time superfluous -- not bad

per se

.

[the silent speaker]

Benin has already requested removal from the Speakers' list, I think. If I am mistaken, please consider this a request for removal.

[the silent speaker]

Seven votes in favor, one abstaining. It's all about Russia now. Ping 'im.

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed to the speaker:

Referential to the second statement in the preamble, in what way is Romania trying to

protect

veto-powered nations? Spreading the MABM over a wider field of potential locations than simply the veto powers is harmful to them, surely?
Also, why is "protecting the veto powers" in itself a bad thing? At most one of them can possibly be evil, and there might well be none.

And

if anyone has a special role, it will likely be a veto power. Logically, given the choice, the veto powers would be the group among our options to protect, wouldn't it?

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes against

closing debate

[the silent speaker]

Points of information directed at the speaker:

In your defense, you argue that your reasoning has been that it is impossible for there to be

two

nations with veto power among the Axis of Evil. However, your actual arguments have centered on the assertion that there is not even

one

. Please explain.
Regarding your comments on defending the nations with veto power: Do you not realize that, far from

defending

the nations with veto power, your attempted amendment actively endangers them? If we do not keep the MABMs withiin the Permanent Members, there is a two-thirds chance that

no

Permanent Member will be protected tonight and the Axis can pick one off freely. By restricting the MABM placement, our odds of preventing a nuclear strike triple (presuming the Axis goes after the more dangerous-to-them Permanent Members first).
Also, how does widening the field of possible locations for our inspectors widen our information net? Our net remains the same; all you would succeed in doing is widen the ocean. That makes our task harder, not easier.
Additionally, the

pro

logic you posted in your reply to the Philippines is the reason most of us supported this aspect of MUNSCM 003 -- but it runs exactly counter to your stated "widen the information net" arguments only a few posts up. To which opinion do you adhere, and why put the other one forward?
Finally, this delegate also posted arguments concerning the fitness of Romania for council-sanctioned nuclear strike. I would appreciate it if you could post a rebuttal.

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the speaker:

We have already been told that there are exactly three members of the Axis of evil. Not four, and not two except inasmuch as there are two on the way to being three. Five is right out.
As such, if there is an evil permanent member, there are

two

evil temporary members -- another 1/5 chance, and we need to find the permanent member

first

. That is the task that "widening the net" makes harder -- finding the permanent member, if such exists. Also consider that where the weapons inspectors go, so go the MABMs.

I find it absolutely impossible for there to be 2 axis of evil nations with veto power because then the axis of evil would be almost impossible. That is why i have been fighting the idea of even 1 evil veto nation.

This delegate is confused. Since two is impossible, you feel we should ignore the possibility that there is one?
This delegate also refers you to his turn on the Speakers' List

supra

, the section titled "On the fitness of Romania for nuclear strike", and requests that you comment on the opinions expressed therein.

[the silent speaker]

Benin

Moves to Shelve MUNSCM 007

. It is the belief of this delegate that with the end of the Speakers' List reached and apparently no one immediately inclined to ask points of information from the current speaker, the next order of business will be to vote on the resolution; and it is the opinion of this delegate that voting on the resolution will be potentially disastrous without measures in place to prevent the Axis from exercising a hypothetical veto if and only if Romania is one of their own. Therefore, the wisest course of action would seem to be to put MUNSCM 007 aside until 008 and 009 have been discussed and voted on, and only then to determine Romania's fate. This requires a shelf motion.

[the silent speaker]

I believe that does it. Let's hear The China Plan.

[the silent speaker]

My resolution

would

have to come up less than a week before Passover. This delegate alerts the Security Council that until the 14th or so posts may not come as frequently as its members would like and begs their indulgence. Actually, this could turn out convenient, since I cannot be first on the Speakers' List anyway.

MUNSCM 009: Oddsmaking

Noting

that there is at most one nation among the permanent members of the Security Council in the Axis of Evil and may well be none;

Observing

that our odds of striking scum are therefore either equal or far better by focusing on the non-permanent members;

Acknowledging that if there is an evil permanent member then we cannot lynch evil non-permanent members;

1.

Restricts

consideration of countries to be targeted by UN nuclear weapons to the non-permanent members of the Security Council until further notice;

2.

Removes

permanent members of the Security Council's power of veto over resolutions concerning annihilation of specific countries, also until further notice.

-- submitted by the delegate from Benin, who now steps down.

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the speaker:

Is it your opinion that there are or might be two evil veto powers? If so, why?

Point of information directed at the chair:

Do the "until further notice" clauses have the intended effect of creating a standing barrier that will nonetheless not be too hard to remove should the town deem it necessary, or do they effectively do nothing, or have I created giant lizards rampaging in downtown Tokyo? Especially, what is to be considered "further notice"?

[the silent speaker]

This delegate reminds the Council that due to this week being Passover, he will not be able to deal with any questions with the attention they deserve; else he would already be on the Speakers' List. Please ask questions of the current speaker and get on the Speakers' List yourselves or the game will stagnate.

[the silent speaker]

Benin will ask to be put on the Speakers' List so as not to leave it vacant, but will still not have opportunity to actually utilize the speaker role until Tuesday night or possibly Wednesday. If anyone else wishes to speak between now and then, Benin automatically lets them "cut in line".

[the silent speaker]

Aww, I didn't get a chance to defend my initial resolution. Ah well; I was and am of the opinion that not voting the permanent members is to our advantage until and unless we have information on them or some remarkable reason to vote them in information's absence, and the resolution-as-stated was intended to offer them some protection aganst scum spamming the council with resolutions to lynch them, but it did not offer so much additional protection for them that the revocation of the first clause is likely to lead to any tragedies. We just have to use our common sense and not propose any of them without some stellar reasons.
For the delegate from Germany, I point out that two scum countries with veto power could have (until this resolution) vetoed each other's lynches with impunity and there would have been no way for the UN to win, ever. Therefore I credit the Chair with the foresight to ascertain that there were not, in fact, two countries with veto power on the Axis of Evil before convening this council.
For the delegate from China, I realize that the "safety" of pro-town permanent members vetoing each other's lynches is gone, but one, who assures the rest of the council that they are pro-town (and once such assurance is given, why are they up for lynching?), and two, we need the anti-town members to be vetoless far more, since as long as they aren't we will find it impossible to lynch non-permanent members unless they are pro-town. Indeed, I wonder at your opposition to such an abundantly necessary move.

[the silent speaker]

I don't think much more needs to be said, and so

Benin votes yea

.

[the silent speaker]

Benin is probably automatically voting

in favor

since it is Benin's resolution, but is posting to say so just in case the vote isn't automatic.

[the silent speaker]

Benin votes

in favor

of the motion to reopen debate and gives congratulations and best wishes to the outgoing delegate from the United States.

[the silent speaker]

I would also like to speak against the motion proposed by the Philippines just now. (I believe the motion to reconsider has already passed.) We should let the people who wish to speak get on the Speakers' List and make their points first, or we won't have anything to talk about in caucus anyway. Once the Speakers' List is exhausted we can worry about caucusing then.

[the silent speaker]

I wonder why China has not requested addition to the Speakers' List?

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes against

. For the love of God, China, what the hell do you think you're doing?

[the silent speaker]

*nods* Benin

votes in favor

. China has some 'splainin' to do.

[the silent speaker]

POI to the Speaker:

Why has China been so reluctant to enter the Speakers' list, and in particular why did China not voice its concerns the first time this resolution was on the table?
Also, for what reason did China resubmit MUNSCM 006 as 008 after the agenda clearing only to withdraw it before it could be discussed and voted on? Clearly you thought it important enough to insist on its presence at first; what changed? This applies also to MUNSCM 011, but this delegate is unsure if MUNSCM 011 was identical to the other two or still another resolution-on-a-yoyo.

[the silent speaker]

Benin votes

in favor

. Let's get on with passing my resolution already, seeing as no one remains opposed to it.

[the silent speaker]

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Benin

votes in favor

.

[the silent speaker]

Point of Information to the Speaker:

How many votes do you advocate to be reckoned a "clear majority" and henceforth the resolution would be unvetoable by Permanent Members late with their votes? Eight in favor? Eight in favor before anyone opposes? Fourteen in favor? Some other number? The resolution as stated appears to indicate fourteen, but this delegate would like the threshold to be made absolutely clear.

[the silent speaker]

Point of Information to the Chair:

If this resolution passes, could, say, France veto a resolution on sending inspectors to Russia, or is the revocation of veto power limited to the country whose inspection is under question?

[the silent speaker]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Information directed at the Speaker:

Granting that the first clause does nothing, what harm does it do? And assuming that there is none, what harm is there in allowing a useless operative clause to "piggyback" on a resolution? i.e. assuming that consensus is reached regarding the second clause, would you still object to the resolution on grounds related to its first clause, and if so, why?

[the silent speaker]

*moves*

[the silent speaker]

I wonder if that person in the corner blibbering over the collapse of protocol is the Chairman.

[the silent speaker]

This is the longest Day 1 I've Benin.

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes yea

.

[the silent speaker]

Benin votes

in favor

.

[the silent speaker]

While Benin agrees that the only thing remaining for us to do is decide who to destroy, Benin feels that the best way to do this is to table MUNSCM 007 again and

votes against

going to caucus. Should the consensus of the Council be

not

to destroy Romania, we can go to caucus then.

[the silent speaker]

Vote: yes, extend caucus

. The delegate from Benin had his microphone turned off for the Sabbath and has been unable to participate.
Germany: You what? I was badgering China incessantly? As I recall, the person who spoke of China's actions as "his most recent treachery" sprechens sie Deutch. In particular what set off

my

alarm bells re China was that he had refused to enter himself on to the Speakers' List until pushed, despite having two separate Speakers' Lists to join; this when it was his actions in particular that warranted discussion; he attepted to close debate without taking the turn to speak; and this seemed part of a pattern regarding trying to maneuver the Council without his voice being heard. In particular Resolutions 006 and 008 were one resolution expressly resubmitted to the Agenda after the housecleaning claimed it, and then removed immediately before the Council had a chance to see it. This delegate thought he saw a pattern emerging, and wished to question China regarding its elements. If doing so when one sees a pattern is wrong, this delegate humbly requests not to be right.

[the silent speaker]

You'll notice, delegate from China, that I haven't been pursuing these issues. I was elaborating on what I had been pursuing at the time. Your responses were a bit weak, I felt, but consistent and sensical enough to allay my suspicion for the time being. I would appreciate, though, if you could post what the texts of your motions were, so we the council could at least see what you judged to no longer be relevant.
I second the United States's wish to understand Romania's motivations in voting against extension of caucus.

[the silent speaker]

Why is the Philippines' suspicion of you so unreasonable, Romania? Why have you more right to suspect him than he has to suspect you?

[the silent speaker]

vote: in favor

[the silent speaker]

Benin wishes to be added to the Speakers' List.

Point of information directed at the speaker:

Why is it your wish that France in particular take a turn to speak?

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the Chair:

How come Benin isn't on the Speakers' List immediately after Spain?

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the Speaker:

Furthermore, he is just as likely to be guilty as most of the members of this council and

less than some

.

Which delegates do you feel are likelier to be Axis than Romania, and why?

[the silent speaker]

On 28 February this delegate made a speech outlining why I think Romania is likely to be a member of the Axis of Evil. I now quote the pertinent portion of that speech in full.

There are some good grounds for this action: the delegate from Romania's motion to close debate on a resolution which, it should be patently obvious to all, is utterly useless without some kind of amendment, comes immediately to mind. This seems to indicate a wish that the resolution be passed in its useless form, to be a nonaction quickly forgotten. But this is only the latest in a series.
Mr. ZONEACE has asserted of late that his apparent disregard of the rule that countries may not veto their own annihilation is the result of ignorance of the rules. After seventeen pages, I find this most unlikely; further, in speaking on MUNSCM 003 and proposing his recent motion he demonstrated that he does, indeed, know the rules. What is more, during caucus he said this:

I am going to have to agree with mathcam on this one. To give the power of Veto to 2 evil countries seems a bit, well insane and unbalanced.

This post clearly entertains the concept of one evil veto country, and indicates awareness of the inherent flaw in the existence of two -- or, possibly, knowledge to the effect that the countries with power of veto have more power than the rest of us are aware. Either he has contradicted himself, or he has knowledge that Romania should not possess.
The delegate from Romania, as mentioned above, spoke on MUNSCM 003. The entire thrust of his speech was that "I just don't see any of the Big 5 being members of the axis of evil", and on the strength of his not seeing, we should obliterate almost the whole point of the resolution! If his arguments had carried the day, we would be inspecting a random country, likelier than not a "Big 5" nonmember, in blind trust that all of the "Big 5" are good -- and at the same time keeping our MABM away from the same countries in which blind trust is supposedly being placed. And then he immediately stepped down. After dropping this bombshell, the delegate from Romania did not even allow us the chance for points of information from him. Was he concerned that points of information would trip up his facade of being helpful to the United Nations? I think so.
Don't get me wrong; it is entirely possible that all three members of the Axis of Evil are temporary members rather than one of them being permanent. But the other way around is equally possible, and all our eggs should not be in either basket. The delegate from Romania's attempts to wangle our eggs not only into one basket but the more potentially catastrophic of the two, and his extreme vehemence on the subject, I find most worrying. Equally worrying, almost as soon as I pointed out that the current resolution puts his country in no immediate danger, he moved to close debate on it lest it be improved.

This delegate would like to further note that he asked Romania point-blank to respond to the above speech and was met with:

I am through fighting this hopeless cause. No matter what i sau, you will find some fault with it. All i can say is that while destroying romania will increase future attempts to find axis members (my death will make it 3/14). So do what you will, i obviously can not change the opinion of some of you no matter what i do.

the delgate from romania steps down.

More recently Romania has insisted that the Philippines

must

be in league with Osama bin Hussein al-Khatami Jong-il by virtue of having put forward a resolution directed at Romania. Mr. ZONEACE is of course entitled to his opinion that the Philippines is so in league, and that his resolution indicates the same; but it passes credulity that he should expect the entire council to assume that such a resolution is a blatant and unequivocal sign of guilt. Surely, Mr. ZONEACE, by precisely the same logic, you must be scum, for you have been demanding we nuke the Philippines?

Two things further should be noted. First, that Romania has made a partial response to one of the points mentioned above, namely that his insistence on there not being any permanent Axis members was predicated on the mathematical certainty that there cannot be two.
Second, this delegate did not think much of the "pretending to be the Philippines" argument. It seems unlikely that scum would try to pass itself off as another, innocent, nation, both because they could not possibly hope to remain unnoticed by the nation they were impersonating and because no doubt many delegates identify the delegates primarily by their name tags and only secondarily and for formal speech their countries of origin. I know I do.

This delegate admits to a slight perplexity, however, as to how any delegate could get its country of origin confused with another, and why that other should spring to the delegate's mind. It may be that Romania made an honest mistake -- but that mistake consisted of mentally switching himself with his scum fellow. This is, admittedly, entirely speculative and should not be used as grounds for annihilation; but if Romania

is

annihilated and turns up scum, the Philippines may bear another look.
The delegate from Benin now stands for points of information and especially encourages the Romanian delegate to clear up whatever he can.

[the silent speaker]

This is the second time that speech drew no interest, too. Is it my breath? Because I can ease up on the garlic-and-sulfur if that's what it is.

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the speaker:

1. Is there any basis other than the Philippines' sponsorship of a resolution directed at you on which you hang your accusation of the Philippines? If so, what is it?

2. For what reason did you consistently attempt to shut off important lines of discussion, e.g. by stepping down immediately after making a particularly controversial speech without even so much as standing for points of information?

3. Regarding this point:

Romania is only trying to make you all realize the odds of multiple Evil veto countries is slim.

Was anyone entertaining the idea that such a thing was possible? I know I wasn't. If there were two evil veto powers, the situation would not be winnable by the forces of good. In other words, who did you feel needed convincing?

4. Positing for the moment that you are correct in your assessment of the Philippines, why, in your opinion, did that delegate find it so necessary to eliminate the country of Romania in particular that he risked his own neck to do it?

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the speaker:

This delegate feels you may have misunderstood point 2 above. The most striking instance of apparent shutting-off of fruitful debate was where you put forward a proposal that the council not clear its veto powers first and saw fit to not even so much as stand for points of information. At this point you were obviously not stepping down in the interests of your own neck. It is regarding such instances that the previous POI requested clarification.

[the silent speaker]

My biggest problem with the resolution the both the MABM and the weapons inspectors going to veto nations. The best thing we can do is diversify. I like the idea of the MABM going to a veto nation but i think that weapons inspectors whould be sent to a non-veto nation, with everything still at random. It just seems horribly unbalanced if the mafia had a veto nation. I dont see any of the big 5 being members of the Axis of Evil. We should limit (not the word i want to use but cant think of a better word right now) out inspections to the lesser nations, the ones with less clout.
I support this resolution except for the parts I have outlined above.


Getting rid of line 4 entirely i feel is the best course of action. It wold be better if both nations were random instead of both nations definately being in the group of 5. that is all for now.
The delgate from the philipines steps down.

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes against

. Let's vote on it instead of shelving it, and put an end to 007 once and for all.

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes in favor

. And good luck vetoing in the teeth of MUNSCM 007, Mr. X, if that

is

your real name.

[the silent speaker]

We're voting on whether to close debate, Romania. Pay attention.

[the silent speaker]

Benin

votes against

the resolution at this time but warns the delegate from Romania that inattention will no longer be considered an excuse for poor behavior.

[the silent speaker]

Eleven votes cast, one autoabstention. Who's not voting and can they be poked? I have 5 in favor, 6 opposed, btw.

[the silent speaker]

That's that, then. Let's see PolarBoy's latest.

[the silent speaker]

The delegate from Benin would like to respond to the delegate form Romania as follows: Aha! You admit it, then!

[the silent speaker]

Point of information directed at the speaker:

Am I correct, in your opinion, in understanding this resolution as asserting, one, the delegate from the UK's belief that the United States is in the Axis of Evil; two, that assuming this is so, there are no other evil countries with veto power, and the investigation of nonveto countries should commence immediately; and three, that if this turns out not to be so, the surviving veto countries should be investigated as per the original plan of MUNSCM 003?

[the silent speaker]

Vote: in favor

[the silent speaker]

Benin wishes to be added to the Speakers' List.

[the silent speaker]

point of information directed at the speaker:

With that being said, I am not willing at this time to advance a lynch based solely on my own observations alone.

Should the above be taken to imply that you are withdrawing MUNSCM 011, with its attendant clause directing nuclear attack at the United States?