MUNSCM - Abandoned

[mathcam]

Ich bestätige enthusiastisch.

Cam

[mathcam]

*nods silently for no particular reason than to finally post in this game*

Cam

[mathcam]

Point of information directed toward the speaker:

Don't you think that a specific country

requesting

the MABM inherently destroys the randomness of the procedure? There are certainly ways of actually randomly selecting a host for the MABM.

Cam

[mathcam]

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 have

a chance

at stopping a kill?

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

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]

I think we need someone to speak in opposition before we vote, as this is a non-trivial point of order. But then again, I'm probably out of order as well by posting this. ???

Cam

[mathcam]

Ditto.

Cam

[mathcam]

I will speak in favour:

[mathcam]

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]

Vote: opposed

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

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.

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?

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.

Germany

[mathcam]

*coughs loudly*

[mathcam]

I think we're going to get yelled at, but okay:

Vote: In favour

of closing the debate.

Cam

[mathcam]

CS, please come back! We miss you. Um, and the game stopped.

Cam

[mathcam]

I think Munscum 002 is totally done, with Talitha's veto.

I second the motion for Caucus.

Germany

[mathcam]

No speakers? Good.

Votes: In favour of motion to caucus

.

Cam

[mathcam]

*indignantly screams "NEVER!!!!!"*

*sits back down, ashamed at himself.*

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

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!

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.

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]

Sorry for the double post. EPR: I don't know this for sure, but I believe Cuban will tell us the motive of a country when it's nuked. You could always PM him, though.

Cam

[mathcam]

7/24, Innocent finds innocent
1/6, Innocent finds guilty
1/6, Guilty finds innocent

This is assuming what...that there's exactly one evil in the veto-powered nations? If so, shouldn't these fractions add up to 1? What happened to the other 9/24?

Cam

[mathcam]

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 the

receiver

gets killed overnight. This happens 1 in 4... so we'll have a confirmed innocent tomorrow among the veto powers with probability 75%.

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, we'll have an essentially confirmed motive tomorrow with 75%:

We'll have an essentially confirmed innocent 60%, and an essentially confirmed guilty 15%. (The other 25% chance is that the receiving power is killed and we get nothing).

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, we'll have an essentially confirmed motive tomorrow with 75%:

We'll have an essentially confirmed innocent 60%, and an essentially confirmed guilty 15%. (The other 25% chance is that the receiving power is killed and we get nothing).

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

I don't see any flaws in sending the MABM to wherever we investigate. That way we have a very good chance of getting concrete information in the morning.

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

Vote: No

on the motion to alter the agenda.

Cam

[mathcam]

We've got 3 votes against the motion to amend the agenda, no votes for.

Cam

[mathcam]

*nudges PB*

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

*steps down*

Germany

[mathcam]

I'm pretty sure.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: In favour

of closing debate.

Cam

[mathcam]

Votes in Favor (6): melchizedek, FD, mathcam, PB, shady, Talitha
Votes Against (2): ZONEACE, the silent speaker

We need 2 more votes in favour.

Cam

[mathcam]

Germany

votes in favour

of the resolution.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yay! Progress! *shuts up*

Cam

[mathcam]

Motion to Amend the Agenda

: I motion we remove all proposal describing a plan that was rendered redundant or contradictory to the recently passed proposition. In particular, all amendments from players no longer in this game shall be removed.

Cam

[mathcam]

(specifically, propositions MUNSCUM 004-006, I believe)

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

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)

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!!!

It sure sounds like you were speaking against the motion to amend the agenda to me. Nonetheless, I suppose my question

was

answered.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh, really? Then CS is gone have a hissy fit.

Cam

[mathcam]

Germany votes

in favour

of the resolution. (Just resubmit it afterwards, FD)

Cam

[mathcam]

Bah, I meant motion:

Germany votes

in favour

of the motion.
Cam

[mathcam]

Denied!

Oh, fine.

[mathcam]

Vote: Against

the motion.

Cam

[mathcam]

Point of Information to the speaker with the word speaker in his name

: Can you clarify the last sentence of your above statement? You do recall that nations specifically named in a proposal do not get to vote or veto said proposal, correct?

- Germany

[mathcam]

Germany

votes in favor

of the amendment.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: against the motion to close debate

.

Cam

[mathcam]

vote

in favour

Cam

[mathcam]

*twiddles thumbs waiting for ZONEACE...wonders how much prep time an innocent really needs...*

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: In favour

Cam

[mathcam]

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]

Point of information directed at the speaker: Is it your opinion that there are or might be two evil veto powers? If so, why?

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 from

considering

nuking 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 of

this

proposal before preceeding. In short, is has no effect on the game other than to slow it down.

Do 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?

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. We

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]

Point of Information directed Toward the Chair

:

a) Am I right in thinking that only the current speaker can propose an amendment, and
b) Would I have to get on the list again to do so?

Germany

[mathcam]

Um, I request to be put on the speaker's list. For now, I shall simply dance at the podium.

Cam

[mathcam]

I guess I'll remove my request to be on the speaker's list, because this is probably the last time I'll check the board before Monday, so someone else get up here and propose we strike the first clause. Or tss could amend it to re-word it so that it's non-binding.

Cam

[mathcam]

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 even

consider

the 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]

Vote: In Favour

Cam

[mathcam]

Can we start voting?

[mathcam]

The delegate from Germany motions that we close debate on MUNSCUM 009.

Cam

[mathcam]

Hm, oh yeah.

Vote: In favor

Cam

[mathcam]

The delegate from Germany votes

In favor

of the resolution.

- Germany

[mathcam]

Sigh....

I would like to file a motion to reconsider the voting on this proposition.

Cam

[mathcam]

Point of Information directed at the Chair

: Can you unvote? Or are perhaps votes locked in once they've been announced?

Cam

[mathcam]

I would indeed like to speak in favor of the motion to reconsider. Specifically, I would like to remind the delegate from China that he has veto power only so long as the rest of the nations allow him such power. You have used your veto power recklessly, voting no on a proposition without having previously even

hinted

that you might do so. It is the opinion of the delegate of Germany that the delegate from China did not even bother reading the thread to determine the subtleties and benefits of the aforemention proposal.

The proposition just vetoed is of tremendous good for the town. There is no reason why one town member should have any more say than any other in the decision to lynch or not, as they have no more information than any other town member. On the other hand, the power to veto the annihilation of a specific country is a potent weapon in the hands of the evil nations. Thus, the proposal does the town good and hurts the scum.

I encourage the delegate from China to explain (perhaps by speaking against this motion) the reasoning behind his most recent treachery.

Germany

[mathcam]

Delegate from the United States,

If the proposal passes, then the community at large will be the deciders of who is to be annihilated. It will simply take a majority of nations voting yes on the proposition to annihilate to ensure that it happens. This is far superior for the town than giving any evil Security Council nations the power to veto any annihilations of their co-axis of evil.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'll have a resolution for you within minutes of the vote being decided...I'm just not sure which one I'll need to propose until the matter is settled.

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Against caucus

I'd also like to request to be put on the speaker's list for the resolution.

Cam

[mathcam]

Delegates,

I would like the coutnries with veto power who plan on voting down this resolution to ask themselves when they think their veto power will be of use to them. When will you be so sure of another country's innocence that despite the wishes of the town, you will not allow the town to annihilate that country? This is, in essence, all the veto power is in this situation. It is granting certain specific countries the power to over-rule the wishes and senses of the majority to obnoxiously follow their own instincts.

Obnoxiousness aside, there are practical reasons to consider also. The countries opposed to this proposition have made two claims:

1) Non-scum nations should have the ability to veto.
2) Scum nations will not veto nukings anyway, because it will give them and their comrades away.

Note how contradictory these statements are. If a nation vetoing the "lynching" of another nation is an implication of guilt, then in what situations is it right for non-scum nations to do the same? Won't that imply that they too are scum?

I simply do not see the logic in allowing either scum or mis-informed townies to blatantly disregard the wishes of the majority in cases such as these, and as has been suggested before me, will push for the removal of the veto power of speciifc countries unless those countries are brought to their senses.

Germany

[mathcam]

My main suggestion is that we pass the proposal which removes which only addresses the nuclear bombings. My secondary suggestion is that veto countries who refuse to relinquish this minor aspect of their power should have all their veto powers revoked.

While this indeed works as long as the town has a majority, don't you realise the trouble it will give when a significant portion of the town is slaughtered?

If the town does not have a majority, the game is beyond hope. We will never again be able to nuke a scum territory again. We will all slowly fall to night-kills. Thus, using this one scenario as a last chance at saving this argument just doesn't work. Plus, even in the cases we we only have a

slight

majority, majority rule is still better than allowing scum to pick and choose who they want to save.

Germany

[mathcam]

POI directed at the speaker

:

Has the delegate from China come to his senses yet?

Germany

[mathcam]

Excellent question, delegate from Germany (and might I say you look ruggedly handsome).

Perhaps the delegate from Chine would like to ask further questions that would indicate his current stance on the upcoming proposition.

Germany

[mathcam]

Vote against the motion to close debate

Cam

[mathcam]

I think Uraj is correct. That's what I read too.

Vote: Against

the motion.

Cam

[mathcam]

Point of Information to the Speaker: Do you agree that we should demand the return of the delegate from China to the Speaker's List?

I believe the delegate from China was mistaken about the optimal strategy, in particular about the merits of Proposition MUNSCUM 009, and used his veto power somewhat irresponsibly. (There was much discussion of the proposition in which he raised no objections to the proposition, yet used his veto power anyway). I do not attribute the actions of the delegate from China to scumminess. Forching him to endure our questioning would probably be nothing but a frustratingly long waste of our time.

Unless there are further questions, I will motion that we return to voting on proposition 009.

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, that wasn't intended to be an official motion.

*steps down*

Cam

[mathcam]

*psst....just put questions marks at the end of each sentence....*

Cam

[mathcam]

POI to the Speaker

: Why do people keep asking you inane questions instead of proceeding with the game?

FOS:

People badgering China in an attempt to make themselves look more innocent.

Germany

[mathcam]

Vote: In favor

Germany

[mathcam]

Vote: In Favour

Germany

[mathcam]

*wails* Stand by 'Ger man....



Cam

[mathcam]

In Favour!

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, the only thing that has struck me as suspicious for the entirety of this game day is the players that somewhat incessantly badgered the delegate from the China for his voting on one of the propositions (MUNCSCUM 009?). The two players in particular who stand out in this field are Vraak X and the silent speaker.

The reason I foudn this suspicious was that to me, at least, FD appeared to be attempting to work in favor of the town, even if he did disagree with myself and others on a fairly major point. The two delegates mentioned above, however, used the time to make themselves look more innocent by attacking FD.

I would be more happy lynching either of these two delegates than either of the delegates from Romania or the Phillipines.

- Germany

[mathcam]

Delegate from France: Though I applaud your creativity, and agree that we can probably find some system of better utilising our tools, I'm wary of introducing the specific suggestion you proposed. The inherent flaw, as I see it, is that the axis of scum can communicate at night and thus coordinate their voting. The town, on the other hand, can not. Thus, we give the axis a major advantage, which obviously is suboptimal.

Germany

[mathcam]

this delegate humbly requests not to be right.

Granted.

I stand by my previous statement...it looks to me like you were just trying to earn some cheap innocent points off of China.

Germany

[mathcam]

Vote: In Favor

Cam

[mathcam]

Second.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh, I misinterpreted "table."

Vote: Against

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: Against

. Romania, in case you're not nuked, you might want to quit it with the obnoxiousness. You're not gaining many friends.

Germany

[mathcam]

Heh at CS.

Vote: In favor

Cam

[mathcam]

Yup.

Cam

[mathcam]

We gonna move out of roll call?

Cam

[mathcam]

Vote: In favor

Cam