MUNSCM - Abandoned

[shadyforce]

Thank you honourable chair, Ladies and Gentlemen, delegates from the many countries present, I would like to stand firmly behind my proposal for 3 main reasons, as mentioned in the proposal itself: We need to use the defenses, it doesn't matter where at this moment, and I got here first and why it's hassle to change it now.

1. Firstly I don't think anyone here will disagree that the right action i to move the mobile anti-ballistic missiles into some country. It certainly doesn't do any harm, and does protect that partiular member from being nuked. *Waits to hear objections to that point*

[mathcam]

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

Cam

[PolarBoy]

The delegate from the United Kingdoms wishes to be added to the speakers list.

[Dragon Phoenix]

*makes rhubarb rhubarb noises, while waiting for the speaker to get to the point*

[shadyforce]

2. Secondly: Where the MABM is placed this early in the game is completely random. It doesn't make a difference. It just means that one player gets doc protection and the rest don't. We are all equally innocent or guilty at this time so noone deserves it more or less.
*Waits for any objections there*

[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

[shadyforce]

If we were do actually do it with randomizer.org or something like that, there would be accountability issues. Who would do it, might they lie, etc.

What I'm saying is by random I mean it

doesn't matter who

gets it, as long as someone (with a small s) get's it.


Anything else before I proceed?

[Dragon Phoenix]

Point of information directed toward the speaker:

does the speaker realise that what he is saying (as long as someone gets it) is not equivalent to a random choice?

[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

[shadyforce]

Yes, I understand they are different, but their

effects

will be the same, ie. somebody will end up with the MABM in their country, and does it really matter who?

[Dragon Phoenix]

Point of information directed toward the speaker:

Does the speaker realise that this point of view is likely to bring him Pakistan's vote when we get to decide whom to nuke first?

[shadyforce]

@DP: Are you threatening the nation of Chile sir?

@Mathcam, yes I see your point. Hang on a sec...

[Dragon Phoenix]

Point of information directed toward the speaker:

I am not threatening. I am simply stating a fact. Once we will vote for a nuclear strike on a member, you will be on my shortlist.

[shadyforce]

Point of Order directed towards the Chair:

In light of the suggestions from our friends the delegation from Germany, I wish to amend the motion replacing '

Chile

' with '

a nation selected randomly by the Chair

'. The motion should now read:

• MUNSCM 001: MABM Utilization
  
  

  Noting

  that defenses left unused are a waste of resources;
  
  

  Acknowledging

  the randomness of night doc protection early in the game;
  
  

  Noting

  that most decisions are made on a first come first serve basis;
  
  1. Requires that the United Nations Mobile Anti-Ballistic missiles be placed in a nation selected randomly by the chair until further notice

I did not think it possible for the chair to be involved with placing the MABM, but now that you alerted me of the possibility, cam, I think it's worth checking out.

[cuban smoker]

Delegate from Chile, you are out of order. Once you have begun speaking on the resolution, you may not submit an ammendment for it. This is an either/or situation.

Also, speakers, after their original speach on a resolution, should take great care to only answer questions, and not digress substantially. I would like to commend the delegate from Chile for following these procedures, as he sets an example for all delegates.

But you are still out of order. Only someone futher down the speaker's list may submit an ammendment. And, when submitting an ammendment, may not speak on the resolution, but only on the ammendment, as outlined in procedures.

MUNSCM 001
Submitter: Chile
Seconder: Benin

Speaker's List:

Chile < current Speaker
Algeria
Angola
Pakistan
Spain
United Kingdom

[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

[cuban smoker]

Delegate from Germany, such a resolution would be permissable and enforceable. The Security Council has enormous power.

[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

[PolarBoy]

in favour

[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

[cuban smoker]

Delegate from United Kingdom, your vote is out of order, and will not be recorded. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't say it, a small amount of "heckling" is permissable.

Delegate from Germany, as suspected, you are out of order. But thank you for reminding the delegates of procedure.

I need a speaker opposed to this motion. Please speak immediately. Once they have spoken, voting will begin immediately. Recall there are no abstensions on points of order.

[cuban smoker]

If there is no speaker against this motion I will have to rule it in order...

[Leonidas]

Honorable delegates, Algeria believes we should either protect a country which has veto power, or determine randomly the country that is to benefit from the anti-missile shield.

[cuban smoker]

Delegate from Algeria, you are out of order. You should address the motion. In particular, why should we NOT close debate on this resolution?

[Leonidas]

Honorable delegates, the proposed motion, while guaranteeing the usage of our anti-missile shield, does NOT provide us with optimal use of this precious ressource. Several methods have already been suggested to determine the country we choose to protect: more specifically, a random deployment, as proposed by Germany, would give us an opportunity to trick the axis of evil.

Algeria also believes that, if such a method cannot be worked out by the delegates, we should choose a country with veto power as the beneficiary.