SSUNS Feature: MI6 Agents Save the World

by KFC on November 14, 2011

MI6 agents. Like a boss.

SSUNS Secretary-General Deep Seal spoke about a paradigm shift in Model United Nations where more conferences are now simulating other organizations and agencies outside the United Nations that impact international relations. The MI6 committee at SSUNS is one example of that — and an example of how rapid-fire thinking and decision-making looks like. Check it out!

MI6 agents have to react fast to timed crises. Here bombs will go off in six cities in India in roughly 16 minutes if the agents can't track them down -- and diffuse them.

Agent DP4 (John Abbott College) gets animated as he tries to solve the crisis

Agent DR1 (Bishop Strachan) has several suggestions as well

MI6 agents are anxious to find out if their actions helped save lives

Ultimately several of the bombs did go off in India and thousands of people died. The MI6 committee then got another assignment focusing on Syria — will they do a better job saving the world this time? Check out their rapid-fire debate below:

From the feedback we heard at the faculty advisor’s meeting, the delegates loved this committee. Glad everyone enjoyed their intense endeavors at saving the world!

Check out our coverage of Opening Ceremonies and delegates in action in other committees, too!

  • Pingback: MUNday: Triple Liveblog Recap and THIMUN Singapore Preview()

  • Pingback: SSUNS Liveblog: Delegates Enjoy Gala & Soiree()

  • Anonymous

    An advisors’ opinion:
    SSUNS as a conference: 4th time visited the conference in general is ran fairly well. The site of the Delta Centreville is a good hotel / convention setting. Most deadlines were valid and did not fluctuate too much. Updates were fairly regular and one could sign up in the prior spring or early fall to take advantage of early registration. If one’s school has the money. We had country our assignments by late September. However, as usual with many college conferences topics and topic synopsis’ were missing, incomplete, plagiarized or late up to the week prior to the actual conference. Blogging is a nice idea and was available but was often not used by more than 2 or 3 delegates and usually ignored by the chairs. Blogging could be a great asset if given more than lip service by SSUNS and many other conferences. The 21 st century beckons.
    Committee: Grade B he college circuit continues to rely on fantasy topics or reinvented history for many committees and topics especially in crisis, cabinet or forms of SC. Sadly, at SSUNS this was especially evident in the poorly ran Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, New York Times Editorial Board, Somali Civil War, Treaty of Solferino, Royal Dutch Shell, MI6, Allende’s Cabinet, DeGaulle Cabinet and Indian Cabinet Ministers ( similar to Model Congress definitely NOT MUN). The worst was the Ad Hoc SG’s committee. This “special” committee for top notch delegates was poorly planned, ran and concluded. It seems in some many conferences what sounds like a “sweet” idea for the new staff taking over rarely comes to fruition. None of these cabinets, as is common with so many conferences the last few years, had very much to do with reality, learning and factual events. They all have nothing to do with Model United Nations and its specific mission in the slightest. These cabinets and others like them, have a lot to do with college MUN’ers replicating these simple types of committees at their own conferences. This is all good and well but these “simulations” are vapid, thin and fueled by passionate flummery, book ended by binge drinking. To think of these as somehow being thought of as debate let alone having any value above used car salesmanship is a farce.
    One of the saddest committees was as GA style historical debate on the 1956 Suez Crisis. The good side was the committee ran fairly efficiently as far as procedure. History was not a winner here by any stretch of the imagination. The chair repeatedly changed the start date of the committee. It is apparent that key moments chronologically speaking were oblivious to this chair. Thus when he realized the import of exact dates and places he would change the starting point, over and over. Policy was not important, a key aspect educationally of MUN. Then again why should it be ? The chair did not care, as per usual with such committees, fantasy based solutions on the ability to spew rhetoric is always a very reliable way to succeed. One can only hope that someday an expert comes along and rectifies these crimes against history that are committed in the name of “historical” debate. Which BTW is NOT Model UN. In twenty five years of doing this as an advisor or as a delegate the only good historical crisis committees are ones that are ran as close to real policy, diplomacy and knowledge of events as possible. Otherwise one should just go to a local restaurant with a few pals and arm chair QB the hell out of anything they wish that is the topic du jour. This would save so many so much money and time travelling to such poorly orchestrated events.
    Let me be succinct. Only really good chairs can run big committees of 75 or more. The larger, the better the chair needs to be. They need to be topic knowledgeable but order out of natural anarchy is their first test. Small committees need chairs that know the topic backwards and forwards. Their challenge is in separating the solid knowledgeable delegate from the posturing motor mouth. All will speak but the delegate who truly shows preparation and knowledge versus parasitism and rhetorical offal are where these chairs need to be knowledgeable. In general most of the chairs at SUSSNS were procedurally solid and the dias was competent in running their large and often small committees. It also appeared that few if any profited from the “old school” alumni network. This alone is a godsend and a huge issue with many conferences especially back east. When spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars to attend any such conference one would expect a top notch simulation.
    Awards: Grade B Hhhmmm well despite a specifically vague award policy, it was very confusing / subjective as to who and why some won awards. Spec Pol a committee I visited often was a enigmatic to be kind. Good side was that the conference finally started giving out paper recognition vs the pathetic “verbals” so many rely on. More awards are only a benefit vs the paltry few. Just a reminder to print and sign an award is a very quick thing to do. If one can mention a name then they can also hand out a piece of paper. The concept of 3 gavels is great and fair. Many committees everywhere have at least 3 top delegates in this most subjective of all competitions. Many more 2nd and 3rd tier awards could have been given also. There are many delegates who worked hard and deserve recognition. Still at SSUNS at least there was an improvement. As with all conferences transparency and chair accountability are absent when it comes to awards. This to needs to be addressed by all serious conferences if they are to give recognition.
    Closing ceremonies: Grade D +Typical and redundant at best. So many schools left before and during awards. Awards started 30 minutes late. Then it was a self congratulatory love fest in front several hundred kids that had no idea who these people were. Baby pictures, bad speeches, flowers etc etc went on for another 45 minutes. This is hostage taking. These things can be done after the conference when the staff gets together to celebrate (rightfully) that the task is done. Holding students and advisors hostage, ignoring the demands of travel, local and cross country let alone 911 issues is ignorant. Give the awards and “celebrate each other afterwards. The delegates only know and care about their chairs.
    Miscellaneous: Talking about money it appears that big cash cow committees are not enough here. (I.E. big numbers equals big profits) Any good advisor with a calculator can figure out the working budget of any conference. Many of us have had alumni fill us in on the exact costs and expenses of these MUN galas. As fees climb to 60 75 or even 100 dollars per delegate. As every breathing adult with any delegation is to be charged their fee. Plus every school and national assignment also has its own special fee. SSUNS this year went to a new level. It ran and charged for a tour of McGill. This tour was four dollars and consisted of one hour peering into empty buildings. No school was satisfied and felt abused. McGill offered the Soiree dinner. This cost 30 dollars and consisted of ……. Pasta. Despite exotic promises of a grand event many were extremely disappointed in cost and quality of the Soiree.
    When will college MUN squads start to realize that using high school conferences as a private bank for funding their own bacchanalian evenings and College MUN events is a poorly kept secret. Then maybe just maybe they might seriously try to put on a real UN oriented simulation that we pay for. It seems to this advisor that things are only getting worse. MUN as a learning experience based on reality to foment comprehension of the international scene, is a theme that is lost and often laughed at by ones who should ethically be trying to do and support just that. I say we High school MUN advisors need to vote with our wallets. Having a quality conference, I myself and so many other schools are willing to pay for.
    Overall: Grade B We would come back and would attend again. All things considered it is a good conference and with a little work in ID’d areas, it could have schools clamoring to attend repeatedly.

Previous post:

Next post: