MUNSCM - Abandoned

[massive]

Heh, bigbenwd even spams games he's not in! Go figure!

/confirm

I had a penpal from the Phillipines once. She was kinda cute.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines votes

in favour

of the motion.

[massive]

The delegate from The Phillipines, obviously, votes

against the resolution

.

[massive]

The delegate from The Phillipines seconds the resolution.

[massive]

The Phillipines believes that action of this course is necessary. A nation with veto power must be held accountable to abide by the laws and by-laws of this union.

Due to the geographical proximity of China to the Phillipines, the nature of China's affiliation is of increased interest.

Learning the true nature of China's warfare programs would provide the United Nations with the strength and security that this magnificent country has provided throughout history.

[massive]

Admittedly, the stake of the Phillipines in this resolution is rooted in its proximity to the great nation of China. The Phillipines would like to know that it can trust its ancient neighbor.

Also, please note that in order for an amended resolution involving randomization to pass, all five veto-holding countries must approve it. Setting up the veto-holding countries with the knowledge that they, at least, can work freely and tirelessly at securing the UN should be at the forefront of this council. Resolving the veto-holding countries in order disallows them the ability to veto the plan as a whole.

[massive]

It is of little import to the Phillipines as to where the inspector's report is sent. As the original resolution did not address the direction of the report, it is seemingly outside the discussion on this resolution.

At this point, I will step down and give my remaining time to the gentleman from Chile.

[massive]

The Phillipines votes

against

the amendment.

[massive]

The Phillipines would like to move for caucus once discussion on this resolution has finished, and the resolution has been voted upon.

[massive]

Point of information to the speaker:

Could you please explain why, if you are opposed to the amendment AND the resolution, that you continue to filibuster and hold up the vote which will inevitably result in the failure of this resolution?

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines wishes to inform the council that he has been ordered to return to the Phillipines immediately to deal, quickly, with a pressing issue at home. He seconds the motion for immediate caucus, and then will return on Monday.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines would like to move to

close debate

on MUNSCM 002.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines votes

in favour

of the resolution.

[massive]

In light of the USA's veto of this amendment, the delegate from the Phillipines would like to move once again for caucus, to begin after the vote for caucus and continue for 48 hours.

Obviously some non-procedural discussion would be of benefit to all parties, as well as enable all countries to revitalize their ambassadors and return their focus to the tasks at hand.

vote in favour of caucus

[massive]

I think it's imperative, still, to weed through the veto-countries first. Remember that if one of them is evil (which I think is viable), that they can affect which resolutions get passed and which don't. I liked the reasoning behind sending the Weapons Inspectors to China first, but I'd be willing to do any of the experienced players (four of the five veto countries, mind you) first.

I'm really hating the MABMs. There's no way to use them effectively and gain information. I think the right angle is to make sure you include either revealing which country was protected first thing in the morning, or sending the protection choice to a random country as well.

And I think everyone will tell you that "lynching someone" is a must. We only have the Weapons Inspectors as cops, we can't trust either (a) the results or (b) that the investigated OR receiving countries will be alive come the next morning. We can't sit around and wait for them to turn up conclusive evidence. We need to start weeding out people now. Again, I'm still thinking a veto country wouldn't hurt.

[massive]

You know, statistics are all nice and all, but they're a smokescreen. They don't provide any real, helpful information - they just possibilities. Well, like, we already know all the possibilities, so big whoop. They present themselves as helpful information when they don't have any factual basis to them. So all three of you gain hearty FOS'es from me.

[massive]

I think (at the very least) if we can't decide on a good, interactive way to determine where to send the MABM, that it should be randomly assigned among the veto countries. It makes sense that the Axis of Evil would want to strike there first, as it most likely prevents them from making game-changing propositions.

[massive]

Because if they don't reveal their results tomorrow, we'll just nuke 'em. All of this discussion is predicated on the assumption that, WHOEVER receives the results, they will disclose them to the council in the morning.

[massive]

vote against

the motion to amend the agenda. It's possible that there is no vetoing of agenda amendment?

[massive]

In the interest of moving discussion along, the delegate from the Phillipines votes

in favour

of closing debate. And is curious how the Phillipines hired a second delegate. Although, hey, I shouldn't complain about two votes.

[massive]

The Phillipines REALLY votes

in favour of

MUNSCM 003.

[massive]

The Phillipines votes

in favour

of the motion to amend the agenda.

[massive]

MUNSCM 007: The Romania Referendum

Noting

that Romania is trying to protect veto-powered countries;

Also noting

that Romania is continuously attempting to cover over the possibility of a veto-powered Axis member;

Also noting

Romania's attempts to pass its actions off as actions of the Phillipines;

1.

Strongly suggests

that a nuclear missile attack be directed at Romania.

[massive]

The Phillipines requests to be added to the speaker's list.

[massive]

The Phillipines will speak opposed to the motion to close debate.

Obviously the wording of this resolution is not strong enough to enact any real change to our Security Council. Voting on this resolution, as worded, is useless unless the wording can be changed to bring about real action. The Phillipines, as sponsor of this resolution, would prefer to maintain debate until an amendment to this effect can be decided upon.

[massive]

Point of Information directed at the speaker:

Isn't it important to note that, were the amendment passed and the resolution subsequently vetoed, a future resolution could be proposed that would, in effect, do exactly what the ineffective portion of your amendment would like to do?

[massive]

The Phillipines votes

in favour

of the amendment to MUNSCM 007.

[massive]

Point of information to the chair:

Isn't it also important to note that all Resolutions passed only go into effect once a motion to Adjourn for the day is passed, thus allowing us to pass further Resolutions without MUNSCM 007 taking effect immediately?

[massive]

(to the speaker)

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines thanks the delegate from Pakistan for the insightful amendment, and now stands ready for your inquiries, peers and friends.

[massive]

To the esteemed delegate from France: I do believe that the actions of the Romanian delegate were purposefully done. Go back and look at the posts that Romania propogated while falsely claiming to be from the Phillipines - speaking against the proposed resolution to concentrate our efforts on veto countries, voting against closing debate on the same resolution, voting against the resolution. Are we to believe that the delegate from Romania, who posted a colloquial "Dracula" reference in his opening post, suddenly "forgot" which country he was representing? These stances aren't popular, and I believe that Romania hoped to confuse the issue as to WHO specifically supported these views by signing his posts "the delegate from the Phillipines". I would hope that delegates would do their research, but it's certainly possible that these views may have been attributed to my country in the future, possibly after I have been removed from this council, and my country would have no way to defend the fact that these positions are NOT supported by the Phillipines.

To the esteemed delegate from Benin: Perhaps "protecting" is too indescriptive a term - "protecting" in the proposal refers to Romania's continued efforts to shield them from our inspections, and NOT to protecting them from nuclear strikes from the Axis of Evil.

Romania stood as the sole opponent to the proposed move to send our weapons inspectors to a veto country, citing that a country with veto power as a member of the Axis of Evil is simply "horribly unbalanced" and suggesting instead that we concentrate our inspections on the non-veto-bearing members. I believe that he would not do that if he were in our shoes, where we cannot be certain that any set of countries is exempt from membership in the Axis of Evil.

[massive]

To the delegate from Romania: Obviously I can give you no assurances other than my performance and voting record in the council session. None of us can give that assurance. That is why this council operates in a democratic manner.

[massive]

Votes against

the motion to close debate. Also, I agree with allowing Romania a chance to stand for points of information, so if there are no more questions of the Phillipines, I will step down from the podium at this time.

[massive]

Point of information to the speaker:

If you believed that weapons inspection efforts should be spread among ALL countries, why did you agree with Germany's proposed resolution during our caucus (mathcam's post is 224, yours is immediately after it at 225), which insisted on targeting veto-powered countries?

Point of information to the speaker:

If your acting under the name of the Phillipines was an "honest mistake" as you claim, why is it that all of your posts that have actual content were done during this time frame, and that every post before naming yourself the Phillipines was merely to vote, and every post after being debunked as Romania, have either been to vote or defend yourself?

[massive]

Well, delegate from Germany, in all fairness he DID say Thursday afternoon.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines will speak against the motion to shelve debate. The Phillipines is unsure as to why the council cannot resolve this issue now. Proposals 008 and 009 have absolutely nothing in the wording or titling to indicate their intent, and even so, are completely unrelated to MUNSCM 007. The delegate urges the council to remember that they are free to pass and change resolutions as they see fit, and that ONLY the motion to adjourn causes passed resolutions to be enacted.

Please, let's not allow this important resolution to be unresolved. We believe that the delegate from Benin is acting in good faith, but cannot see how shelving this resolution helps progress.

[massive]

The Phillipines

votes against

shelving debate on MUNSCM 007.

[massive]

The Phillipines

votes in favour

of the amendment.

[massive]

The Phillipines votes

in favour

of closing debate on MUNSCM 009.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines votes

in favour

of the motion, and looks forward to being on the Speaker's List for the re-debate.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines would like to

move once again for caucus

, to occur before the revoting of MUNSCM 009, and to last until Wednesday, April 28, 10pmedt. The Phillipines believes frank discussion is once again needed.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines would like to be added to the Speaker's List.

The delegate from the Phillipines would also like to rescind the motion for caucus, as the original motion for caucus detailed an end of caucus at a time that will probably pass before all members vote on the motion.

[massive]

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?

[massive]

The Phillipines

votes in favour

and apologizes for his being in the mens' room during his call to the Speaker's Podium.

(in honesty, I was overly busy out-of-town, as described in the away thread, but I wanted to apologize anywho)

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines requests to be added to the Speaker's List, and as the Speaker's List is empty, hopes that it is in order that he immediately takes the podium.

I would like to say that I am quite unsure what this proposal is trying to do. The two portions of the proposal seem to be trying to short-circuit things that the Security Council could do by itself given the situations presented.

Section one requires that when a future proposal instructs a Weapons Inspection in a country with a veto, that that country has his power of veto removed. The rules of the Security Council already remove this power: a country CANNOT veto a proposal that names them and only them by name. So this portion of the proposal seems to do nothing.

Section two requires that a country cannot veto a proposition when they are the only country remaining to vote. While I can understand the function of this section when presented in good faith, it effectively terminates a permanent member's veto ability based solely on the time they decide (or are able) to vote. What should happen if one of our permanent members receives information of innocence about a country, but cannot veto the resolution to destroy it before the last vote? (I understand that, arguably, the country being destroyed would vote no and negate this clause, but this is the best example I can come up with that displays the possible problems with this clause.) If the council feels that a proposition was unnecessarily veto'ed, they can move to remove the vetoing power and again discuss the proposition, this time without the threat of immediate veto looming.

On the contrary, I believe that this proposition instead removes the chances for the evil among us to slip up. Without the ability to veto things that immediately impact their Axis compatriots, the probable Permanent council member in the Axis is less able to impact this session, and thus less likely to make the errors that will best help us to find and eliminate them.

[massive]

To the esteemed gentleman from Spain: I realize that the second portion of MUNSCM 010 has EVERYTHING to do with timing, although that was not your point. MUNSCM 010 basically says that if you want to veto something, you had best do it before everyone else votes, or your veto has no effect. I think the emphasis has been placed on what this does in terms of giant, game-affecting resolutions and not what this does to the smaller, less-impacting resolutions.

I do realize that the ability to veto nuclear strikes has been removed. I believe the council has already agreed that whoever receives the inspectors' report should reveal that information immediately; as I stated, it was a bad example but the only one I could think of that adequately described how my country felt about the proposition.

To the esteemed gentleman from the United States: Please bear with me, as English is not the native language of my country, and your use of negatives and double-negatives has left me somewhat confused.

For most of your statement, please remember that I have said (and will say again) that the example was a poor one. The Phillipines feels that there are many implications that are being overlooked, but these are arguably minor, and so the example was given to try and impress some urgency about the other side of the proposal. It is obvious that there are issues with the example, as I stated in my opening comments.

In reference to the first clause, of course we have read and understood the language of the first clause. My initial comments were constructed to remind the council that, by and large, the first clause is unnecessary and should not be considered as a reason to keep this proposal.

To the esteemed gentleman from China: I agree that this is probable, but not absolute, and said so in my initial comments.

To the esteemed gentleman from Benin: The first clause of MUNSCM 010 is not harmful in and of itself. My initial comments were to remind the council that it, in effect, does nothing, and should not be considered as a qualifier in their votes for this proposal.

As such, I am of course willing to take my own advice, and will not vote yes or no based on the first clause of this proposal.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines will be taking a short sabbatical over the weekend, and thus steps down from the podium. If there is demand for my return, I will resume my spot on the speaker's list once I return.

[massive]

I would post something witty, but have you seen ALL THESE SHOES!?

[massive]

The Phillipines

abstains from voting

.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines would like to apologize for his prolonged absence. He has requested transcripts of the past week's events, and will be in his chambers reviewing them until tomorrow.

[massive]

The Phillipines

votes in favor

of returning MUNSCM 007 to discussion.

[massive]

The Phillipines is prepared to enter the Speaker's List, and to speak immediately, and will defer at any time to the delegate from the United States.

The Phillipines still supports this proposal. And why wouldn't it? If even the personal attacks from the delegate from Romania weren't enough, there's no denying the facts:

One, the delegate from Romania never clearly defended his positions that led about to the initial resolution against him. Continued questioning only led to aggression, and not answers.

Two, since stepping down and finding himself saved by the miraculous tabling of MUNSCM 007, the delegate from Romania did nothing but vote when necessary for a solid month-and-a-half, most likely hoping that the fervor against him would dissipate if he behaved.

Three, upon realizing that the only option available to the council at this time was the re-introduction of MUNSCM 007, the delegate from Romania immediately took the aggressive stance once again, and attempted to bring the weight of this council around on top of the Phillipines. With no proof and not even a slight shred of evidence to produce, the delegate from Romania again resorted to baseless accusations. An act of a desperate delegate, hoping to cover up his country's involvement with sinister powers.

For those of you among the Council who saw it fit to table this motion in the past, I hope that the continued actions of Romania will help you to see fit to pass this resolution AS IS.

The delegate from the Phillipines now stands for points of information. Again, to remind all, I will step down for the delegate from the United States when they are prepared. I would also like, at this time, to urge the delegate from France to add himself to the Speaker's List.

[massive]

In response to the gentleman from Spain: Your point is a good one. I have, of course, seen the delegate from Romania act in this manner in other arenas. I believe all of us have. The last example of him acting in this manner is in Mini 106 ... where he was the serial killer.

In response to the gentlemen from Benin and France: A certain comment from the delegate from France has this delegate put off a bit, and I would like some clarification on that comment.

[massive]

In response to the gentleman from France: I can point you to the comment, although I must state that it is neither relevant to my being on the Speaker's List, nor technically a "point of information" of my stance on this issue. The comment was post 892. I will be more than happy to compile a complete question once France is on the podium, and will rejoin the Speaker's List if further discussion is required.

Since no one has seen fit to actually ask this delegate questions about his position (beyond the gentleman from Spain), the Phillipines steps down from the podium and yields his time to the United States.

[massive]

* wipes away tears of laughter at the thought of America and Spain making those comments straight-faced *

[massive]

Point of Information to the Speaker

: Would you rather we sanction bunnies and flowers and balloons, rather than nuclear strikes? Is the sole basis for your "protection" of Romania based around his attitude, and not the fact that he refused to answer direct questions regarding his guilt, nor his actions that followed the initial shelving of MUNSCM 007?

[massive]

Point of Information to the Speaker

: Are you aware of Romania's second stand on the Speaker's Podium, pages 20 and 21? Would you like to comment on his answers to questions from myself and the delegate from Benin? Of particular interest to myself, and bearing in mind the discussion of Romania's involvement since the shelving of MUNSCM 007, would you comment on the question posed in post 493 by myself and the subsequent answers? And would you like to comment on his stepping down while under fire?

[massive]

Point of Information to the Speaker

: In my original statements on this resolution upon it's tabling, in post 913, I brought up the actions of the delegate of Romania since the shelving of MUNSCM 007, namely my second point. Would you please comment on how that point, in conjunction with my earlier comments about the delegate from Romania's play while NOT posing as the Phillipines, simply reflects the delegate from Romania's attitude?

[massive]

Point of information to the speaker:

My comment was merely to have you explain why you quickly dismissed this proposal as "misguided". Had you decided at that point that Romania was innocent, and has there been nothing from myself, the US, or Benin, that at least gave you pause?

[massive]

Point of Information to the Speaker:

In my points of support for this resolution in post 913, I brought about three additional points that could be considered as "reasons" to pass this resolution. Could you speak on those, in particular number two?

[massive]

Point of information to the speaker:

In your response to my initial point of information, you said:

The reason is i have not seen fit to make any other effort since then. Nothing has been done that would warrant me to do much more than vote.

Can you please explain how this would demonstrate the loyalty to the Council that you claim you have?

[massive]

The Phillipines

votes in favour

.

[massive]

The Phillipines

votes in favour

of this resolution.

[massive]

The delegate from the Phillipines would like to acknowledge his staunch support of Queen Elizabeth's current husband.

[massive]

Point of Information to the Chair

: Can the delegate from Romania be forced to actually SPEAK on behalf of the resolution?

[massive]

The Phillipines would like an answer back on his Point of Information before voting.