MUNSCM - Abandoned

[Dasquian]

Greetings fellow delegates. The delegate from France requests the smallest amount of patience from the council while he familiarises himself with the summary of events so far.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France has concluded his appraisal of the transcript of events left by his predecessors and is pleased to announce that his full attention is now focussed on the issues at hand.

France requests to be added to the speaker's list.

[Dasquian]

Point of information to the speaker

: the delegate from France politely reminds the honourable Chinese delegate that discussions cannot continue until he answers the questions posed or steps down as speaker

[Dasquian]

Point of information directed to the speaker:

Is the delegate from Romania not aware that, as pointed out in the rules and by several other delegates so far already, that a resolution or amendment naming exactly one country with veto power (for example, one that authorises weapon inspector deployment or sanctioned nuclear strikes) may not be vetoed by that nation?

As such the delegate from France puts it to you that your assertion that there are no members of the Axis with veto power is based on false premises.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France agrees and

votes against

the motion to close debate immediately.

[Dasquian]

Hmm, go on then:

Point of order:

Noting

that MUNSCM spends large periods of time waiting for the responses from a single speaker;

Also noting

that the first points of information are frequently the most pertinent;

Acknowledging

that it is frequently and understandably unclear to a speaker when there are no more questions for him or her, resulting in unnecessary time delay;

Asserting

that the negative effects of limiting the number of points of information are counter-balanced by delegates being able to rejoin the speaker's list to address further questions;

Also asserting

that this motion would not affect the speaker's right to step down of his or her own accord;


The delegate of France submits the motion to put a limit of 3 points of information per speaker, such that after this limit has been reached no other delegates may put forward points of information to the speaker, and that once the speaker has addressed these points he or she must immediately step down as speaker.

[Dasquian]

Point of information to the chair:

The delegate from France is confused. Are we currently voting on the proposed amendment by the delegate from Pakistan, and if so, are we expected or allowed to justify our votes?

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of the amendment, noting that without it MUNSCM 007 wouldn't be worth voting on, and that the second part of the amendment can be ignored, should rational sense persuade the delegates thus, as it is non-binding.

(

Point of information to the chair:

is my above explanation brief enough to be in order? Or may we only provide explanations of any length if requested of us? Oh, and France requests to be removeed from the speaker's list.)

[Dasquian]

Point of information directed to the speaker:

In reference to the third supporting point on the resolution, do you believe (as implied) that the delegate from Romania signing himself off as being from the Phillipines was intentional rather than being an error? If so, could you please elaborate on how you see Romania advancing the agenda of the Axis of Evil in this way.

[Dasquian]

Votes against

the motion to close debate. France believes the delegate from Romania deserves an opportunity to stand as speaker and make his case.

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of the motion.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France

votes in favour

of the motion to shelve debate.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France assumes that it is appropriate for him to stand as speaker at this time and propose the following amendment:

1.

Strikes

the first action of the resolution under discussion, which restricts the flexibility of the council without providing any benefits in return;
2.

Renumbers

the second action of the resolution under discussion, which removes veto power in specific situations, such that it is now the first (and only) action.

The delegate from France steps down (as, he is sure the chair will remind him, is his only option ).

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of the ammendment, in case this wasn't automatic.

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of closing debate on MUNSCM 009.

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of the resolution.

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of the motion, and wishes to note his extreme skepticism of China's motives.

[Dasquian]

France

votes against

the motion to go to caucus, and requests to be added to the speaker's list (if such a request is in order).

[Dasquian]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I am pleased that the council is being given a chance to reconsider MUNSCM 009. France has two problems with China's previous veto of it - firstly that it disagrees with China's vote and wishes to see the resolution implemented, and secondly that China did not provide any explanation as to why it vetoed the motion which had widespread support amongst many of the other nations. France will however allow China to explain its own actions, and instead focus on the issue at hand.

MUNSCM 009, after its various permutations, removes the power of veto in resolutions to target a nation for sanctioned nuclear strikes. France believes that this power of veto in nuclear strike resolutions is far more powerful in the hands of Axis nations than in the hands of non-Axis nations, and removing it thus benefits the good nations.

The single instance France believes a pro-town nation is justified in vetoing a lynch is when that veto-empowered nation knows that the nation being considered for nuclear strikes is innocent via weapon inspectors - however in that situation the nation can and should divulge its results to the same effect of using its veto, causing the resolution to fail.

France stands for points of information for a very short period of time, being required to return to its capital in less than 24 hours time, then will stand down as speaker.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from Angola, it is the belief of France that there is unlikely to be clear correlation between the vetoing of sanctioned nuclear strikes and the motives of the nations involved - it is safe to assume that as in any such situation, the informed minority will see clear to not give the uninformed majority such clear or consistant signals, while the innocent veto-empowered nations will be confusing the issue with our own personal beliefs of the use of the veto power. As such, I do indeed believe the potential advantages of this information gathering tool are outweighed by the difficulties it would provide.

Delegate from China, it appears that you are suggesting that there never be any UN-sanctioned nuclear strikes. While France finds the destruction of innocent nations as distasteful as any civilized country, you appear to be advocating the "no lynch" strategy. It is my hope that you will elaborate on this stance when you are the speaker.

To answer your question, France believes that the crux of the issue resides in the ability of non-Axis nations to make use of the power of veto vs. the ability of Axis nations to make use of the power of veto. Non-Axis nations are unsure of the motives of any of the other nations (weapons inspections notwithstanding), so any use of veto power does not necessarily advance the council's cause - they may veto the nuking of Axis nations, or veto the nuking of innocent nations without any way to prove they did the right thing. On the other hand, Axis nations know who is evil and who isn't,

and

what the non-Axis nations know, and a veto-empowered Axis nation could use that veto tactically to spread confusion.

In summary; quite apart from protecting fellow Axis nations, the Axis will be able to make far better use of the veto power with respect to nuclear sanctions than non-Axis nations, and as such it is not an advantage at all. In addition, the veto-empowered nations are in no stronger or more deserved a position to veto resolutions than the non-veto-empowered nations, and there is no reason for these nations to have the ability to overrule over half of their peers.

France steps down as a speaker (OOC: I have to catch a flight home! Back in a day or two )

[Dasquian]

France

votes against

the motion too, but strongly suggests that China ceases its proposals of motions which are stifling debate.

[Dasquian]

POI to the speaker:

Does China now realise that its attempts to close debate in the midst of discussions with no prior explanation has caused it to appear extremely out of order and has needlessly wasted time voting against motions that few of us support?

Hearing your explanation, France is prepared to believe that these were the honest mistakes of an innocent nation, for now, but respectfully requests from China and all other nations that such motions not be taken lightly and certainly never without prior explanation in the future, to save us all a good deal of time

Finally, France agrees that if China has resolved not to veto the resolution that there is no reason not to close the debate and vote.

[Dasquian]

My apologies to the chair!

(and thanks to the delegate from Germany )

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

.

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of MUNSCM 009.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France surrenders immediately and unconditionally to the chair's demands

(In honesty, that's not how I think but, eh... this isn't the thread for that )

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

.

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

of going to caucus. It would be good to talk informally about all MUNSCM duties, not just who to sanction strikes against.

[Dasquian]

I know this is MUNSCM mafia and we're all tied up in some fairly hefty procedural structuring, but this is still day 1 of a mafia game. So I don't think the equivalent of "no lynch" is in any way a good idea, nor do I think that massive is Definitely Scum for suggesting a target for the day.

Other things that may be worth talking about:

- We've gone the way of removing a lot of the veto powers' vetoing power. How far should we go with this? I don't think it'd be a disaster if we put all countries on an equal footing and would stop a fair deal of time-wasting and resolution-blocking by scum. The only plus I can see is that it gives scum "a way to slip up"
- We could be creative with the deployment of MABM and weapons inspectors. I've been having a think and I wonder if we could take some kind of secret nightly ballot to decide where they go.

Mr Chair - is it possible for the council to agree to deploy its assets in this unusual sort of fashion?

It's not a fully-formed idea, but I think it's worth thinking about.
- Someone (can't remember who) made what I thought was a valid point about the distribution of axis powers. We know that there is one at most and possibly no axis members in the veto-empowered countries, and thus there are at least two and possibly three in the other 10. If we do end up putting all countries on an equal-footing, this distribution stays the same and it probably would be worth "playing the odds" and pointing our weapons inspectors there.

[Dasquian]

I support the United State's request for an extension to Caucus.

To try to get discussion moving again - today's nuclear strike. I hope I've made it clear that I feel that not using them would be as much of a mistake in this scenario as voting no lynch on day one in any other mafia game. I don't understand Algeria's opposition to the idea, beyond RPed aversion to the idea of nuking a possibility innocent country.

As it stands I'm not 100% sold on nuking Romania - he appears to be suffering from a severe bout of OMGUS and defeatism rather than being evil. Procedurally, we can just make an amendment to change the target of the strikes from Romania to whoever else before voting on it, so that shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Germany makes some interesting points about people's reaction to China which I'd be happy pursuing - it would be nice to hear the silent speaker's explanation for his attitude towards China too.

*munches on a baguette*

[Dasquian]

Why isn't it possible that the Phillipines is innocent and simply misguided? Why the leap to him being axis?

[Dasquian]

France

votes in favour

.

[Dasquian]

Point of information directed to the speaker:

France will happily add itself to the speaker's list, but does not understand what it is expected to say. Please explain

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

[Dasquian]

Point of information to the speaker:

what is the comment? The delegate from France will then explain it (as well as his stance on the motion) when it is his turn to stand as speaker.

[Dasquian]

POI to the chair:

France asked to be added to the speaker's list immediately after Benin, who asked to be added to the speaker's list immediately after Spain.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France apologises for the delay, and will make his speech in a short while (hopefully about 8 hours or so).

[Dasquian]

Once again, my apologies for the delay.


France largely echoes the sentiments of Spain with regards to the alignment of Romania. It is my belief also that the behaviour of the delegate from Romania, while regrettably impulsive and lacking in decorum, is not inconsistant with his behaviour in other games, and that the most likely situation is that Romania is not a member of the Axis, but is simply frustrated with the position it finds itself in - especially given the length of time Romania has had to live with this resolution on the agenda!
Thus, France currently intends to vote against the resolution should Romania still be the target when such voting takes place.


It is however still my view that it would be a grave error of judgment to end this session of the council without sanctioning nuclear strikes on one of the council - as horrifying as the prospect of decimating an innocent nation is, it is a necessary risk as per any game of Mafia. Having stated its intention to vote against Romania's destruction, there is onus on France to provide an alternative target.

France found the recent speeches by the delegate from the US to be suspicious. Looking past the patriotic filibustering and repeated statements of determination to eliminate the Axis, the US delegate was very reluctant to clearly state its intentions towards Romania, even after repeated questioning from the delegates from China and Spain. The delegate from France asserts that the delegate from the US is undeniably vague and evasive in his replies in posts 924 and 929, only stating his then-intention to vote in favour of the resolution after a third direct question, in post 933.

In a similar fashion, I felt that the delegate from the US was evading criticism from Spain of its arguments by threatening Spain:

But, if Spain wishes to push the issue, then perhaps it should be Spain, not Romania, that is investigated.

And waxing lyrical about nothing in particular:

The United States does not govern by coercion, nor does it govern by fear. It governs through the idea that we can associate ourselves closely with our colleagues in the United Nations, and the esteemed delegates of the Security Council.

These quotes are both from post 937, but they are typical of the delegate's attitude. Thus, France would prefer that we turned our attention to the United States.


Finally, the delegate from the Phillipines has asked me to explain this statement of mine, post number 892:

Why isn't it possible that the Phillipines is innocent and simply misguided? Why the leap to him being axis?

This post was directed to Romania, in response to the Romanian delegate's continued aggression against the Phillipines, while we were in caucus. Seemingly an "OMGUS" attack, I could not understand why he was so certain that the Phillipines are part of the axis, and why he had discounted the possibility of the Phillipines being innocent and incorrect (of course, assuming Romania's own innocence). Thus the above comment was partly an attempt to draw out Romania's reasoning for its attack, but mostly an expression of my inability to understand it. I hope this explanation is satisfactory.

The delegate from France will now stand as speaker for a short while for points of information.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from Romania: currently it is too early to be certain of anyone's guilt, but I am most suspicious of the United States and, at this point in time, would support the nuclear sanctions against them.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from the Phillipines: No, I was not dismissing your proposal as misguided, nor was I or am I sure of the innocence of Romania. A more verbose way of putting my question might have been:

"Delegate from Romania, assuming that you are indeed are innocent as you claim to be, and thus that you are the recipient of an unjustified attack from from the Phillipines, what is it about his attack which makes you so certain that he is a member of the Axis of Evil? Why have you seemingly dismissed out of hand the possibility of the Phillipines being innocent, and incorrect about your good self?"

I was not then dismissing your proposal as that of an incorrect innocent in the slightest; rather, I was asking the Romanian delegate why he was not entertaining the possibility. In fact his insistance that you could not be innocent added further support to your case.

[Dasquian]

Mr Chair, if indeed there are no more questions at that time then please consider me to have stepped down automatically.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from the United States, I am unsure how to respond to your point of information. Your questions appear to be rhetorical, and as speaker it would be inappropriate of me to ask you to answer my questions.

To answer the question put forward in the first sentence though, I did indeed find you to be reluctant in bringing forwards a clear declaration of your stance and intentions. It required no fewer than three direct questions before you were explicit about your intention to vote in favour of strikes on Romania.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from the United States, I will answer your questions in turn:

1) I do not share your belief that your intentions were clear - indeed, the most literal interpretation of your posts prior to an explicit declaration of intent was that you wanted weapons inspectors sent to Romania. And no, I do not believe that a nuclear strike should be sanctioned against you solely for your questions - as I outlined in my earlier speech, I believe your overall demeanour and behaviour makes you more likely to be a member of the Axis than Romania or anyone else at this stage.

2) Buried deep in another heartfelt speech you ask what proof I can offer that I, Romania and Spain are not Axis together. As well you know, I can offer no such "proof", short of becoming the recipient of an inspection myself. However, your implication that any three nations in agreement over who should be sanctioned are evil is a tenuous one and I hope the rest of the council will have no trouble in seeing the ridiculousness of this suggestion.

3) I brought up the topic because I felt you were being highly offensive to the Spanish delegate, insisting that his defence of Romania (which France felt to be a reasonable one) merited suspicion on Spain. The tone was aggressive and threatening, implying that disagreement with the United States was reason enough to be suspected of terrorism (oh, the bitter irony ). As for "waxing lyrical", I feel that much of your speeches have been filled with patriotic banter and little in the way of constructive discourse - my apologies for the frank appraisal, but that's how I see it. I would rather not see a weapons inspection used on Romania, as our current system appears to be adequate - however, I've not entertained the idea for longer than a few minutes so I won't commit either way yet.

Finally for this POI, no, I can offer no "proof" and full accept that you may simply be incorrect in your accusations. I can, however, suggest that you are much more likely to be Axis than Romania, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

4) Simply put, it's a balancing act. While I felt that the Romania's heated pursuit of a nuclear sanction against Phillipines was unjustified and suspicious, I also felt that the complete picture of the Romanian delegate's behaviour was much more suggestive of an innocent nation having difficulty expressing himself with decorum.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from the United States, as a point of order, I understand that one of the council must be the sole recipient of the inspection results. While learning the motivation of the US before nuking it would be helpful at this time, I cannot agree to changing our inspections/MABM policy for your alleged benefit.

To elaborate, I am certain that inspecting our suspects before nuking them is in no way a practical policy. While it gives us a fail-safe on the use of our nuclear sanctions, it just invites the Axis to waste every single one of our inspections, or have free reign over who they wish to kill, depending on how we agree to coordinate our MABM assets.

All that would happen is that anyone innocent who we suspect would be killed one or two nights after we order inspections, and that we will delay the elimination of anyone evil we suspect by a day. I believe the optimal mechanism for the deployment of our tactical assets must be akin to what we currently have - an anonymous and semi-random system hidden from the council and thus the Axis members of the council, to avoid them taking full advantage of it.

Additionally, if we were to follow your implied policy of inspecting before sanctioning, we would be unable to ever justify sanctioning a country until we inspected an Axis nation. This is akin to a town going "no lynch" every day until a cop finds a bad guy in a normal Mafia game which, I'm sure you agree, would be idiotic.

France notes that it is still standing for questions from all nations, and will yield to the floor after any given 12 hour period of inactivity (the Chair may consider this to be an automatic stepping down in my absence, if he wishes).

[Dasquian]

Delegate from the United States, I feel that I, unlike yourself, have been abundantly clear. I would indeed currently sanction a nuclear strike against the United States. I may well be the one to propose this resolution but of course I would not do so before some discussion from other nations and hearing their opinions; I hope future speakers (other than the honourable American delegate) will comment on this course of action.

If, after hypothesised nuclear sanctions, it is found that the United States is an innocent nation then this would of course be a great tragedy - I am certain that France's part in bringing about this situation would not be forgotten, but this is a chance I am willing to take for the opportunity to eliminate an Axis nation. Need I remind you that sanctioned nuclear strikes are the only means at our disposal to protect the free world? You also neglect to mention that should strikes be sanctioned against the United States, this would be because the majority of the council voted in favour of this course of action, not France alone.

[Dasquian]

I should add that, by:

I hope future speakers (other than the honourable American delegate) will comment on this course of action.

it was not my meaning that I did not wish to hear from the United States - indeed, I do hope he stands again as speaker. I just hope that he will not be the only one

[Dasquian]

Delegate from China, my views on the United States are largely unchanged, finding him slightly less suspicious than before, if called upon to indicate one way or the other.

His suggestion that he should be made the subject of weapons inspections before being considered for sanctioning did give me pause, as it would be a brash move for an Axis nation to invite weapons inspections so earnestly; however, if he were an Axis nation, then postponing a likely sanctioning and tying up council resources, even if it guaranteed his elimination the following day, would be preferable to becoming the recipient of a nuclear sanction today.

Apart from this, his responses have been in line with what I expected from a nation whose interests are being threatened, and neither served to make me any more or less suspicious of him.

[Dasquian]

The delegate from France yields to the floor and makes way for the next speaker.

[Dasquian]

France

votes against

the motion. Let's see this resolution through already - we can always add to the agenda later in the day if necessary.

[Dasquian]

Wait, the motion was to start voting? I thought we were voting on shelving it

Anyway. France

votes against

MUNSCM 007.

[Dasquian]

Delegate from the United States, is your motion not out of order? You assume that the chair will declare this motion failed when as you yourself acknowledge not all nations have voted.

In any case, with 50% of the council opposing it it cannot possibly pass; I'm unsure as to the protocol in the event of a tie but I'm sure the chair will enlighten us

[Dasquian]

France reporting as requested, albeit without any hilarious quip.