The MUN Society, AKA The Official MUN Off Topic Thread

Craghyrax

Well there are two seats up for grabs, and somebody has already given me a manifesto. I'll hold two seperate elections, one sooner one later and then you can go for the later one.

(subject to change of mind, incidentally... *thinks*)

* * *
Wedding was great, thanks :smile:

Nah, that won't work. Tell you what, I'll send you a manifesto and risk not being there for the vote. It won't be the end of the world, I still will stand a fairly good chance. And I can always challenge later under the amendment to the charter passed late last year I believe.

Reply 7982

ukebert

Nah, that won't work. Tell you what, I'll send you a manifesto and risk not being there for the vote. It won't be the end of the world, I still will stand a fairly good chance. And I can always challenge later under the amendment to the charter passed late last year I believe.

- - - - -

Reply 7983

Ethereal

- - - - -

You're breaking the charter sir :p:

Reply 7984

ukebert

You're breaking the charter sir :p:

Not so; the rules prevent me from station a preference during the voting. As no voting extant I am not in material breach.

Reply 7985

Don't stress ukebert. I'm not changing my plans for you, its more that I don't actually have any plans yet as I have - of late - set up elections as and when people were interested in running. I have one person now, so if I hold an election for one non-perm seat and said candidate runs along with anyone else interested..there's still going to have to be a second election later on which should by the sound of it, line up with the timing you'd asked for. No?

Reply 7986

Craghyrax

Don't stress ukebert. I'm not changing my plans for you, its more that I don't actually have any plans yet as I have - of late - set up elections as and when people were interested in running. I have one person now, so if I hold an election for one non-perm seat and said candidate runs along with anyone else interested..there's still going to have to be a second election later on which should by the sound of it, line up with the timing you'd asked for. No?

My problem would be that one person may run for this seat, but by the time I get back 2 or 3 people may decide that they'd like to run for the other (or, for that matter, vise versa), which wouldn't be fair on anyone really. It's OK, I'll just write a comprehensive manifesto so that they can't ask me any questions :p:

Reply 7987

Craghyrax

Don't stress ukebert. I'm not changing my plans for you, its more that I don't actually have any plans yet as I have - of late - set up elections as and when people were interested in running. I have one person now, so if I hold an election for one non-perm seat and said candidate runs along with anyone else interested..there's still going to have to be a second election later on which should by the sound of it, line up with the timing you'd asked for. No?

I was not breaching the charter. The charter states

"2) After all the nominations for a vacant country have been received the manifestos will by posted and a Question and Answer period of 48 hours (can be shortened to 24 hours, pending interest and activity) shall ensue. During this time, any MUN member may pose a question to any or all of the candidates. Several guidelines apply during this time period:

• Members shall at least attempt to ask the candidates equally difficult questions.
• No member shall announce their support for a candidate during this time period.
• No member shall comment on the level of competition."

As manifestos clearly have not been submitted, as you are discussing it with Ukebert, this is not the relevant time period and I am not prohibited from the statement I made.

Please stop enforcing rules that do not exist and reinstate my post.

I will infer an apology from the reinstatement.

Reply 7988

Ethereal

Not so; the rules prevent me from station a preference during the voting. As no voting extant I am not in material breach.

Bah! smartarse. Well edit your own posts back then.. I'm still flapping about trying to catch up :s-smilie:

Having said that.. I should probably raise a motion to amend the charter on that regard. The whole purpose of not saying you'll vote for someone is to avoid influencing others by making public your opinion. Stating your preference before the voting even starts..or the election is even set up.. is going to have a similar effect in many cases.

Reply 7989

Ethereal

I was not breaching the charter. The charter states

"2) After all the nominations for a vacant country have been received the manifestos will by posted and a Question and Answer period of 48 hours (can be shortened to 24 hours, pending interest and activity) shall ensue. During this time, any MUN member may pose a question to any or all of the candidates. Several guidelines apply during this time period:

• Members shall at least attempt to ask the candidates equally difficult questions.
• No member shall announce their support for a candidate during this time period.
• No member shall comment on the level of competition."

As manifestos clearly have not been submitted, as you are discussing it with Ukebert, this is not the relevant time period and I am not prohibited from the statement I made.

Please stop enforcing rules that do not exist and reinstate my post.

I will infer an apology from the reinstatement.

I heard you the first time but I'm on a slow computer and my post only showed up after yours :dry:

Reply 7990

Craghyrax

Bah! smartarse. Well edit your own posts back then.. I'm still flapping about trying to catch up :s-smilie:

Having said that.. I should probably raise a motion to amend the charter on that regard. The whole purpose of not saying you'll vote for someone is to avoid influencing others by making public your opinion. Stating your preference before the voting even starts..or the election is even set up.. is going to have a similar effect in many cases.

Maybe, but as it stands it doesn't.

Reply 7991

If you want me to draft you a clause for consideration let me know.

Reply 7992

Ethereal

Maybe, but as it stands it doesn't.

It doesn't influence?

Well we can't know really. That's the thing. Its a safeguard.

Reply 7993

Craghyrax

It doesn't influence?

Well we can't know really. That's the thing. Its a safeguard.

Erm, no I meant it doesn't prohibit. I think if you do intend to make the changes it needs to be done carefully. Incorrectly or ambiguously worded would mean that no one could ever post anything which implied, or allowed inference, support including posts which encouraged members to put themselves forward.

Also, I think that MUNSoc should be expressly exempt from charter restrictions as it is an OOC thread.

Reply 7994

Except when discussions are OOC anyway, as in an election thread :wink:

Reply 7995

ukebert

Except when discussions are OOC anyway, as in an election thread :wink:

That's not relevant to what I just said?

Reply 7996

Ethereal

That's not relevant to what I just said?

Ah I see, the difference between OOC as in users and OOC as in delegates. I still think it's innapropriate to breach charter in that regard in the MUNSoc :yes:

Otherwise the entire point of that particular restriction would be invalid.

Reply 7997

ukebert

Ah I see, the difference between OOC as in users and OOC as in delegates. I still think it's innapropriate to breach charter in that regard in the MUNSoc :yes:

Otherwise the entire point of that particular restriction would be invalid.

The restriction insults members ability to think, imo.

Reply 7998

MUN Off topic being an exception would undermine the entire point of even having that clause in the charter. The practical effect would be the same.

That's why an old SG was able to penalise er... I think it might have been Nutter or one of the SC candidates at the time who attempted to use propaganda elsewhere on TSR to raise support or gain votes in MUN.

Reply 7999