Stag's Model UN proposal

Basically Stag is still pressuring me to add model UN as its own format. He sent me this as his idea:

UN Countries (Separate Tab or Page)
Australia (Join) (1 member) (ranked #1)
Bahamas (Join) (0 members) (ranked #134)
...
New Zealand (Join) (2 Members) (Ranked #2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Options
(Individual Debate) (Quick Debate) (Team Debate) (UN Model Debate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana should be universally banned
(NZlockie) (Stag!)
(New Zealand: Pro) VS (Bosnia: Con)

Here's my reaction:
> Real model UN debaters have far better tools and systems for this
> Even if it was the best system, creating a third kind of format seems excessive
> Even if creating a new format was not excessive, adding "countries" alongside "teams" and "groups" is excessive
> Even if all this were not true the feature would be rarely used if ever, owing to the fact that we are a small site (by design, in some senses)
> We can already do something extremely similar using teams and/or groups

How much would you use this if I made it?

admin: I love Model United Nations! Got two superlatives in my first year of doing it

Here's the thing though, I'd rather have huge MUN conferences discussing several issues than two MUN delegated "countries" discussing one issue. For MUN debates, I'd rather have this:

Council Question as the debate motion
5-6 countries participating,
One chosen country will write a resolution for the debate
This resolution will be debate for four rounds (one pro and one con), and finally the countries will cast their votes with justification
The "real voters" will decide whose justification is the best (and most in line with country's policy)

Model UN is fun. It might be a lot of work, but I think the payoff will be worth it. I'm sure we could flesh out the system as we go too, but it would be overtime. No new system is great right away.