MUNSCM - Abandoned

[Uraj45]

Spain votes

Against

the motion to caucus and requests to be added to the speaker's list.

[Uraj45]

As the delegete from China clearly needs to speak before much more action can be made, Spain requests that China be placed before Spain on the speaker's list.

[Uraj45]

Spain will speak against the motion. Spain feels that there is one more issue which should be considered in terms of veto power and wishes to propose an ammendment.

[Uraj45]

The way the delegete from China spoke, I was under the impression that he wished to close debate so that China may vote for the resolution in that the misenterpretation changed his mind. I had no qualms with this except for the fact that I wished to present my amendment. As such, Spain

votes against

the motion.

[Uraj45]

POI to the Speaker: Do you believe that it might be a good time to step down now?

[Uraj45]

Although the matter of nuclear strikes has been covered by the resolution, there is still a matter to consider in terms of veto power when voting on other important matters. Spain recognizes that veto power can be important in some situations, but a situation where one deleget vetoes a resolution that has been seen by all other delegete to be beneficial is clearly not in the interest of the security council and an abuse of the veto power.
As such, Spain proposes the following Amendment:
2.

Prohibits

use of veto power if all delegates except the delegate attempting to veto are voting for the resolution.
I will now step down.

[Uraj45]

This has gone on long enough.
Spain

motions to close debate

as it appears that discussion has clearly moved off topic and gone into matters that would be better off being discussed in caucus or during other issues.

[Uraj45]

Spain

votes in favor

.

[Uraj45]

Though the first operative clause of this resolution is completely useless as this affect already takes place and I am displeased with the USA's attempt to emphasise his vendetta through this resolution, Spain supports the resolution as being in the best interest of the Security council.
Vetoes of resolutions that have already gained the favour of all other delegates demonstrate too much power in the hands of one person. Such actions are dangerous and should be prevented.

[Uraj45]

This resolution is living, meaning that it changes as the situation changes. The amount of votes in favour required to make a resolution unvetoeable are the amount of countries still alive-1.

[Uraj45]

POIS To the speaker:

Have you noticed that the resolution says countries voting for the amendment and not on the amendment at that this means that it has only to do with the amount of support for the amendment and not the time that a country votes?
Do you not realize that the ability to veto the destruction of a nation has already been negated and do you feel that a nation should reveal their inspector information if it is the only way to prevent it's destruction?

POI To the chair:

Could you possibly clarify for myself and for others what exactly this resolution would do if passed? I wish to make sure that it would have the effect that was intended.

[Uraj45]

It seems that this resolution is simply not generating interest, not that people are inactive.
As such

Spain motions to close debate

[Uraj45]

I do believe that there is no such thing as a motion to role-call.

[Uraj45]

It must be witty? Oh dear.
The delegate from Spain has been delayed due mainly to the rain falling on the plains.
I hope i don't get replaced. . .

[Uraj45]

Vote: In Favor

[Uraj45]

Spain

votes in favor

of the resolution.

[Uraj45]

Spain feels that the best course of action at this point is to decide on our attack. Such discussions would benefit from informal discussion. As such,

Spain motions to move to caucus for a period of no less than 72 hours

[Uraj45]

Yes I do. I personally feel that our best plan of action is to prohibit a nuclear strike today. In all honesty, I've noticed aggressive playing and passive playing, but I haven't noticed anything really scummy. I feel that lynching would be a dice roll at this point and that's not in our favour at all. Tomorrow we'll most likely have a confirmed innocent protected cop and more to go on.

[Uraj45]

Yes, Delegate from Romania, that was quite clear that this was your opinion. But can you please expplain why exactly you wish for us to turn your country into a wasteland?

[Uraj45]

Well there should be more opportunity for discussion with Benin so

Spain votes for the motion

but will not respond seing as how we are not oficially in caucus at this moment.

[Uraj45]

Is there really anyone here who doesen't know? He was opposed to the motion in the first place so why would his opinion be any different in extending the caucus?

[Uraj45]

Spain

Votes in facour

but remains unimpressed by the delegate from the United States.

[Uraj45]

Spain wishes to be placed on the speaker's list

POIS to the speaker

From observance of past games played in by the delegate known as "Zoneace", would you not say that Zoneace can often be agresive by nature regardless of affiliation?

[Uraj45]

POI to the speaker:

I'm somewhat confused. What specifically do you wish to happen in the immediate future regarding the delegate from Romania.

[Uraj45]

POI to the speaker:

You are being vague once again and skirting the edges of this question. Answer my question directly and simply. Do you or do you not wish for this resolution to be passed?

[Uraj45]

POI to the speaker

Mr. Vraax, you have made a noble show to conceal the fact that you have already condemned this country to be blown into oblivion, and that your logic will lead to the proper conclusion. However, tell me most

noble

delegate, does logic dictate that agression is an person who acts hot temperdly is necesarily plotting terrorism? How can this indicate affiliation at all? Or is this merely the perfect scapegoat?
Surely nobody can condone this delegate's actions, but do you have any solid evidence to give us a reason to continue this witch hunt?
You have already made it quite clear that you should be feared, but should only the evil fear you, or merely anybody that has the thought to go against you?

[Uraj45]

POI to the speaker

Do you truely have any intention to "investigate" Romania? It seem to me that it would be difficult to investigate the radioactive ruins of the country that you have already stated that you have already said you will sanction if Romania does not comply.
You say that you should not be feared as an individual, yet you have spoken for this entire council as whole on mulitpile occasions. Nobody can speak for the council. We are all equals here, veto power or no. I can speak for my country because I am that country's delegate, I controll it's actions in this meeting. You have made multiple attempts to control this council. Should one attempting to grab such power

not

be feared??
Blowing up a country shows no sign of caution at all! If your wish is to "investigate" me in the same way that you wish to "investigate" Romania, then I will put my country up before the judgement of the council.The delegate from Romania misbehaved, but far from dangerous and looks no more guilty than the majority of us. If there is one person in this room that sends a chill up my spine every time he speaks it is you. Why should I fear Romania more than I should fear you?

[Uraj45]

That is my point exactly delegate. It is my belief that your actions do not indicate a wish to erradicate the Axis of Evil. We are attempting to find find members of the Axis of Evil. We are

not

looking to destroy hotheaded nations. The only reason to sanction a nuclear strike against a nation is because that nation's ations indicate a likely connection to the Axis. It should be quite clear that the delegate from Romania's temper is not such an action. I have asked you multiple times to state your proof of actions by the delegate of Romania that would be called by some "scummy" and multiple times you have responded with none. So I ask you again, what is your evidence to indicate the delegate from Romania as an Axis member?

[Uraj45]

POI: to the speaker

I have one final question for the moment. It occurs to me that the accusations of countries should be handled as a court process. As such, the burdon of proof is on the accuser. doubt is not fair reason for destruction. Tell me, is Romania innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

[Uraj45]

POI to the speaker:

Who's twisting words now?

[Uraj45]

Spain withdraws the POI as he realizes that the delegate has yielded the floor and will make his statements shortly.

[Uraj45]

Fellow delegates, I can understand that everyone is frustrated with the behaviour of the delegate from Romania's behavior. I am as well. However, such behaviour does not warrant a nuclear strike against his country. Our one and only purpose of resorting to nuclear weaponry is to destroy members of the Axis of Evil. If we destroy a hotheaded country that turns out to be innocent, we give the Axis an advantage.
The delegate in question has acted this way on many occasions. It is consistent with most games he has played in. As such, evil or not, this behavior shows up and thus cannot possibly inidicate affiliation to the Axis of Evil. I am not asking you to tolerate such behavioiur. I am merely asking you to disregard it for purposes of determining guilt.
Once that is put aside, it should become quite apparent that there is a lack of substantial evidence against Romania. Some actions have stuck out and leave me with some look of suspicion, but none of it would ammount to
more than an

FOS

in a normal mafia game. I am fairly certain that it is not this evidence but rather the hostility of the delegate of Romania that have brought this resolution close to being passed.
Do I have my doubts as to the delegate from Romania's innocence? Of course. But I also have doubts of the innocence of any one of you. Only a fool wouldn't. There is also doubt of the guilt of the delegate. Doubt is not sufficient for a nuclear strike. Instead there must be strong suspicion backed up with evidence from behaviour that goes unbder the category of "scummy" or perhaps odd of which there is little.
The delegate from Romania is just as likely to be innocent as he is to be guilty. Furthermore, he is just as likely to be guilty as most of the members of this council and less than some.
I will now answer questions on my stand on the delegate from Romania as well as the delegate of the US and am willing to clarify particular points in either if necesary.

[Uraj45]

Benin: I believe I havemade it quite clear that the USA is significantally more likely to be an Axis member. Many of his actions have left a bad taste in my mouth from the beginning of my placement as delegate for Spain. Other suspicions are much milder and I will not bring them up at this time.
The Phillipines: I am unclear as to which questions you are referring to. Did you mean this one?

POI: Isn't it generally a good idea to read the rules before plunging head first into a complicated game? Isn't failure to do so likely to result in mistakes that are likely to get you nuked?

or perhaps this one?

Why does this honorable delegate imply he will be in hell too?

They sound rather rhetorical to me. How would you have liked the delegate to have responded? I could point to the delegate from the US demonstrating the same point to a greater degree.
I can only assume those actions you are referring to was the aformentioned lack of saying things and simply voting. This has not been at all unusual in this game. Several delegates have adamantly speaken on some resolutions but only voted on most of them.
I focus the majority of my defense around the delegates attitude because I believe that if not for that attitude the delgate from Romania would not be under threat of a nuclear strike. And if the bunnies can stop nuclear strikes, perhaps we should consider the option.

[Uraj45]

USA: My my, that's an interisting leap. I'm presenting my case, therefore I am claiming that I should be completely in charge of deciding which members are evil. It'll take some time to try to figure out your logic there.
Philipines: Can you clarify exactly what you are looking for in reference to the delegates actions since the shelving? The accusation that Romania was attempting to intentionally pass hinself off as the Philipines is perfectly absurd. It would be easy to see through and gives no benefit. As for your first point in that section, I applaud you. You have found

one

substantial point that looks suspicious. Zoneace's stepping down under fire is frustrating but is another clear byproduct of his attitude and I have seen it happen that many innocent people upon nearing a lynch exhibit similar actions.

[Uraj45]

Excuse me, in my haste a phrased that incorrectly. The word got shifted. It should read I have made it quite clear that I believe the USA is significantally more likely to be an axis member.
Firstly, my attempt here is to try to reason with those that wish to see this country nuked to perhaps change their minds. I

am

entitled to do this and every target of a strike

should

have a defender unless it is 100% certain. Secondly, I have yet to hear from the rest of the council recently. I would like to hear from them rather than you telling me that there is no other support. Thirdly, though you made a little syntax error fo your own in your final statemnt, I will take what you obviously meant to say and ask you to clarify exactly how such a thing is even possible much less being done by me. Lack of support and lack of evidence are nowhere near similar enough for one to be passed off as the other.

[Uraj45]

Many apologies for the delay. I am in a hurry and can't say much right now but I will simply say that, yes, defending oneself by attacking other people is a common product of personality and extends beyond this game.
I will not be able to post for a day or two and no other members of the council seem to ahve questions for me anyway so I will now step down.

[Uraj45]

Spain votes

in favor

of the motion.

[Uraj45]

Soaub

votes in favour

of the motion.

[Uraj45]

simply put: cut it out. now.
Furthermore, remember that we are voting on whether or not to nuke you. we are voting on whether or not to vote on whether or not to nuke you.

[Uraj45]

Spain (and very much

not

Soaub)

votes against

the resolution.

[Uraj45]

*witty remark*

[Uraj45]

Ahhh. I failed to realize that the motion had not already been passed.
Spain

votes in favour

of the motion.

[Uraj45]

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

[Uraj45]

POI to the speaker

If you wish to hear other opinions, might not the best course of action be to step down?

[Uraj45]

It is the delegate from Algeria's turn to speak.