Vote of No Confidence : US

The Republic of Sierra Leone would like to start a vote of no confidence against the Representative for the United States of America, for the following reasons :
a) The representative does not post on a regular basis, and does not contribute to relevant threads regarding her country.
b) A recent poll indicated that over two thirds of the active members of the MUN wished for the US to be removed.
Therefore, the Republic of Sierra Leone urges other nations to join us in voting 'yes' to remove the Representative for the United States.

The poll will close on Sunday evening.

Reply 1

Cross-posted from http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=191112&page=5

This poll was entirely motivated by personal feelings towards delegates, rather than based on their performance in the MUN.

Just to take as examples, the delegates that brimstone1 has put up for individual polls:

10 votes - Cheangks - Italian delegate - Never posted in MUN.
8 votes - -Sophie- -Spanish delegate - Posted 8 times in MUN, not since 27/12/05.
8 votes - Spikdboy - Indian delegate - Posted 9 times in MUN, not since 13/12/05.
4 votes - Icelandic delegate - ? Can't find anything.
15 votes - Vienna - US delegate - Posted 237 times in MUN, including 74 times since 01/01/06.

As for the others in this original poll:

7 votes - Multiplexed - Afghan delegate - Posted 14 times in MUN, not for 2 weeks.
7 votes - MMA - Syrian delegate - Posted 23 times in MUN.
6 votes - Simeon125 - South Korean delegate - Posted 22 times in MUN.
6 votes - Deej2 - Vietnamese delegate - Posted 113 times in MUN, not since 30/12/05.
6 votes - Javalinnn - South African delegate - Posted 20 times in MUN.
4 votes - Amar183 - Sudanese delegate - Posted 7 times in MUN.
6 votes - Uma!r - Belgian delegate - Posted 4 times in MUN, not for 2 weeks.
(Swedish & Singaporean delegates excluded because of inaccuracies in poll statement of representative/no information)

Why is the US delegate being categorised with these others (and indeed receiving more votes than anyone else in the first poll) when the US delegate has a FAR superior participation record to any of the others being put up for a second vote?

The US delegate has posted more in MUN than the rest of the delegates in the poll PUT TOGETHER! If we take delegates who have been active this year, she has posted over double as much as the rest put together!

Why is the US delegate being put up for removal on grounds of inactivity when she has registered an average of over 1.25 posts a day in the forum since 01/01/06?

Micronesia condemns the voting in this poll and attempted procedure as a personal attack on the US delegate and a sham.

Reply 2

Agent Smith

11

The delegate for Micronesia is invited to view the other No Confidence Polls.

By the way, having a high overall post rate but rarely appearing in the MUN forum is not, in my book, any better MUNwise than total absence.

I have PM'd Vienna to get her side of the issue, and I will PM the others facing similar polls in just a moment.

Reply 3

Micronesis has viewed the other polls. They deserve to be removed. This poll is a joke.

Having an average of 9 posts a week in the forum since the beginning of the year (better than the vast majority of delegates) is not, in your book, better than total absence?

Micronesia has to wonder about the nature of 'your book'.
Surely claims of inactivity should have a basis in fact rather than imagination? There is no basis for the claims against the US delegate.

What's next, should I be removed for inactivity? My weekly posting average since the beginning of the year is only a couple above that of the US delegate. And no-one has ever called me inactive.

Reply 4

Lone Fox

What about the Marshall Islands? I've only posted 31 times since joining on 09/01/06, that's only about 4.5 times a week. Why is the US delegate being challenged for inactivity when she posts twice as much?

Reply 5

OP

The Marshall Islands was not on the original post for removal. I only took countries from the OP removal vote.

Reply 6

Well, I contest that the US should not have been there at all. And that anyone making secondary polls should have examined the evidence (as I did) before doing so.

Reply 7

OP

The US is a major country, and therefore the representative should be posting on a regular basis (ie. daily). This is not happening with the current representative. Many other reps have complained about this inactivity ruining the MUN for others. Just because one rep does not like the poll, it does not give cause to stop it.

And its not the number of posts that the US rep has posted since 1/1/06, seeing as most of them were in the original thread asking for her removal.

Reply 8

Jangliss

5

I voted against, based on JonathanH's data.

Reply 9

sr4470

15

Serbia has abstained from this vote.

Reply 10

Her averages for both the time since 01/01 and since '4 weeks ago' are both over once a day. And this is at a time when MUN has generally slowed down in terms of both participation and interesting threads, and this cannot be attributed to one delegate.

Reply 11

OP

JonathanH

Her averages for both the time since 01/01 and since '4 weeks ago' are both over once a day. And this is at a time when MUN has generally slowed down in terms of both participation and interesting threads, and this cannot be attributed to one delegate.

At not one point have I attributed it to only one delegate. Firstly, there has been a whole poll listing the delegates that are inactive. Secondly, I have started a number of no-confidence polls against four other countries. I do not just blame it on the US, although they are a contributiing factor.

Reply 12

Agent Smith

11

JonathanH

Micronesis has viewed the other polls. They deserve to be removed. This poll is a joke.

Having an average of 9 posts a week in the forum since the beginning of the year (better than the vast majority of delegates) is not, in your book, better than total absence?

Micronesia has to wonder about the nature of 'your book'.
Surely claims of inactivity should have a basis in fact rather than imagination? There is no basis for the claims against the US delegate.

What's next, should I be removed for inactivity? My weekly posting average since the beginning of the year is only a couple above that of the US delegate. And no-one has ever called me inactive.

Don't twist my words. It's not big and it's not clever.

A delegate could still have a 9-posts-a-week average even after maybe a fortnight's total absence if their post rate at the beginning of the year was high enough - which is usually the case with Vienna - so the average is not conclusive evidence on its own. EDIT: Sorry, didn't spot the "last 4 weeks" thing. That's quite different.

I am waiting for a reply to my PM to Vienna asking for her side of the story, and I do not intend to rush into acting without hearing it.

At the end of the day, if the majority of delegates DO support the removal of another, is it your place or mine to override basic democratic principles?

Reply 13

Maybe not my place, but I think that the S-G should look in to whether claims of inactivity are valid or not. Anyway, looks as if no 2/3 majority in favour of removing will be forthcoming in this case.

Reply 14

Agent Smith

11

My main bit of "looking into" is my PMing of the users in question. Where did you get the "posts in the last 4 weeks" figure? That would be a useful bit of information to have about all the people up for, er, eviction.

Reply 15

OP

Agent Smith

My main bit of "looking into" is my PMing of the users in question. Where did you get the "posts in the last 4 weeks" figure? That would be a useful bit of information to have about all the people up for, er, eviction.

I'd like to know that too.

Reply 16

Just do a search for the username, change it to posts and limit it to the MUN forum. Then see how many say '4 weeks ago' or less.

Reply 17

Agent Smith

That would be a useful bit of information to have about all the people up for, er, eviction.

This is not Big Brother.

Reply 18

OP