NationStates

Posted: **Mon Aug 15, 2016 5:19 pm**

WA Kitty Kops wrote:
Umeria wrote:OOC: Have I already pointed out that your gruesome proposal metaphors are somewhat... perturbing?

OOC: What, you've never made scrap books in real life? (But if it actually disturbs you, drop me a TG on Ara.) I'm off to be horizontal and hopefully unconscious/dreaming/comatose for up to 10 hours.

OOC: I'm not disturbed, just... somewhat confused. You're the NS version of Dr. Frankenstein really into his work.

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:33 am**

Umeria wrote:OOC: I'm not disturbed, just... somewhat confused. You're the NS version of Dr. Frankenstein really into his work.

OOC: The real fun starts when the resulting monster (read: proposal) finally stumbles into the village full of people (goes to vote). It's always exciting to see if they're going to grab torches and pitchforks (proposal fails) or welcome it with open arms (proposal passes). :twisted:

I find my amusement in strange places.

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:36 am**

Araraukar wrote:I find my amusement in strange places.

That is apparent.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:43 am**

There has to be something wrong with my rewritten version...
Well, if, by some miracle, the rewritten draft doesn't have any new flaws, I'm going to submit it tomorrow. Any objections?

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:04 pm**

Umeria wrote:There has to be something wrong with my rewritten version...

OOC: There is. It's just that my life likes pulling the rug from under my feet this year a lot.

1) TASKS the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define a "serious disease" as any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease

There's something wrong with how that is written. Would "define as a "serious disease" any disease" read better?

an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, where

I think that should end with "when" instead of "where".

a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the disease

That should either read "halt the spread of" or "halt them spreading".

Your 2-d definition should start with the medical one, since that's what people are going to think of when "disease" and "treatment" are mentioned together. And that bit should probably read "curing or rendering the infected person non-contagious".

for any nation has difficulty

Should probably be "for any nation that has difficulty".

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:20 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: There is. It's just that my life likes pulling the rug from under my feet this year a lot.

OOC: I knew it was too good to be true. Well, proposal submission countdown moved yet again to 36 hours after this post's time stamp, just in case anyone has any more last words.

Araraukar wrote:There's something wrong with how that is written. Would "define as a "serious disease" any disease" read better?

Right, I was caught up in the "defines X as Y" format.

Araraukar wrote:I think that should end with "when" instead of "where".

Are you sure? It's in the time, not the time itself. I think. You know, in those dramatic speeches they say "the time has come where...", not when. Right?

Araraukar wrote:That should either read "halt the spread of" or "halt them spreading".

Well, "halt the spread of" refers to the entire epidemic, not that one person, and "halt them spreading" sounds... weird. If it were "stop" instead of "halt", it would be "stop them from spreading", but "halt" is better for this clause and "halt them from spreading" also sounds weird. Why can't I just leave it like it is?

Araraukar wrote:Your 2-d definition should start with the medical one, since that's what people are going to think of when "disease" and "treatment" are mentioned together.

Done.

Araraukar wrote:And that bit should probably read "curing or rendering the infected person non-contagious".

If the person is non-contagious, and the disease isn't causing any harm to that person, then you don't really need to cure the disease. A defunct carrier isn't a danger to anyone. I know "curing" sounds more romantic, but it's redundant in this case.

Araraukar wrote:[A rather obvious grammar error on my part... ]

So, aside from grammar, the proposal is finished?

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:01 pm**

Umeria wrote:So, aside from grammar, the proposal is finished?

I'm going to assume that no answer to this question means yes. 7 hours 19 minutes until submission...

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:28 pm**

OOC post.

Umeria wrote:I'm going to assume that no answer to this question means yes. 7 hours 19 minutes until submission...

Or, as is more likely, it means that you're being too hasty again and people who have lives haven't been online long enough to comment.

Umeria wrote:
Araraukar wrote:I think that should end with "when" instead of "where".

Are you sure? It's in the time, not the time itself. I think. You know, in those dramatic speeches they say "the time has come where...", not when. Right?

I think I've only heard "when". And then the basic sentence would read "a time when there are ", which makes more sense than "a time where there are".

Well, "halt the spread of" refers to the entire epidemic, not that one person, and "halt them spreading" sounds... weird. If it were "stop" instead of "halt", it would be "stop them from spreading", but "halt" is better for this clause and "halt them from spreading" also sounds weird. Why can't I just leave it like it is?

Because "halt their spread" is even more wrong than either of those. If you're talking about the entire epidemic, then you're really not making sense - go with "to halt the spread of the disease".

I know "curing" sounds more romantic, but it's redundant in this case.

Well, feel-good wordings like mentioning curing (since most people won't think that "cure" and "make non-contagious" are the same when it comes to quarantines) that may make it more likely to pass, but your call.

Araraukar wrote:[A rather obvious grammar error on my part... ]

You made that look like I said it.

So, aside from grammar, the proposal is finished?

Grammar matters, and I still think the whole thing unnecessary/redundant, but it's probably about as good as it's going to get. Just fix the grammar, give it 48 hours for others to comment (many people won't have time for NS except on weekends).

You might also consider adding an S to the end of the title. More a matter of personal preference, so either is likely going to be ok.

Posted: **Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:09 am**

Araraukar wrote:Or, as is more likely, it means that you're being too hasty again and people who have lives haven't been online long enough to comment.

I woke up this morning thinking "Well, this is it. No more people have commented, so it's time to submit." And then you had to jump in...

Araraukar wrote:I think I've only heard "when". And then the basic sentence would read "a time when there are ", which makes more sense than "a time where there are".

Okay, done.

Araraukar wrote:Because "halt their spread" is even more wrong than either of those. If you're talking about the entire epidemic, then you're really not making sense - go with "to halt the spread of the disease".

You know, I had "halt their spread" in there the entire time and this is the first time you mention it. I'll change it.

Araraukar wrote:Well, feel-good wordings like mentioning curing (since most people won't think that "cure" and "make non-contagious" are the same when it comes to quarantines) that may make it more likely to pass, but your call.

It's not that they're the same thing, it's that they don't really need to cure them in some cases. I'll change it anyway.

Araraukar wrote:I still think the whole thing unnecessary/redundant

I have already stated why this proposal is not unnecessary or redundant.

Umeria wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:What do you want this proposal to do?

I want it to make sure that breakouts of disease will not cause unnecessary chaos and turmoil worldwide. I want it to provide a sensible and reasonable way to contain contagious diseases. I want it to stop the death camp method of treating disease that is so prominent in resource-poor societies.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:What is the main selling point?

There are three main selling points.
1. It assures that epidemics will be handled properly, reducing the chance of it becoming a worldwide disaster.
2. It prevents nations from rounding up their disease victims and letting them starve to death just because it would cost them more resources to actually help them.
3. It puts an international organization in charge of assisting impoverished nations that would otherwise be incapable of keeping a disease from spreading around the world.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why should a voter pass it

Voters would want to pass it because they wouldn't want an epidemic to spread to their nation just because the nation where the epidemic started didn't quarantine it properly.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:and what is the problem which it wants to solve?

This proposal should solve the problem of nations unnecessarily leaving their populace to starve instead of treating them well, and the problem of impoverished nations receiving little to no help with making sure a disease is contained.

Araraukar wrote:give it 48 hours for others to comment (many people won't have time for NS except on weekends).

OOC: Fine, but 48 hours after your post's time stamp, not mine. This time, if 48 hours pass and no one says anything, I will submit it without looking back to see if anyone has any last words.

Posted: **Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:29 am**

OOC post.

Umeria wrote:I woke up this morning thinking "Well, this is it. No more people have commented, so it's time to submit." And then you had to jump in...

Pfft, you know you love detailed feedback.

You know, I had "halt their spread" in there the entire time and this is the first time you mention it. I'll change it.

Hey, take it as a good sign - all the more serious things have been ironed out, so it was time for the small wrinkles to show up.

It's not that they're the same thing, it's that they don't really need to cure them in some cases. I'll change it anyway.

Well, yeah, but considering some diseases are easier to cure (things that respond well to antibiotics) than to bother with looking at their saliva, blood and snot for the presence of microbes, and others may not be curable but can be made no longer contagious, having both in probably works best.

I have already stated why this proposal is not unnecessary or redundant.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. You don't really need to convince me of that (as I've helped you anyway) but rather the delegates who need to approve this. I hope you have your campaign ready to roll.

OOC: Fine, but 48 hours after your post's time stamp, not mine. This time, if 48 hours pass and no one says anything, I will submit it without looking back to see if anyone has any last words.

Requiescat in pace. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Good luck.

Posted: **Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:51 am**

Araraukar wrote:[solidifying the reasons for the previous changes]

Araraukar wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I already quoted my argument, but you have yet to provide any reasons for why a quarantine is redundant.

Araraukar wrote:I hope you have your campaign ready to roll.

OOC: Hmm... did IA mention earlier something about providing a telegram campaign?

Araraukar wrote:Good luck.

Thank you. I'll need it.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:23 am**

Umeria wrote:
Araraukar wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I already quoted my argument, but you have yet to provide any reasons for why a quarantine is redundant.

I've never said quarantining sick people was redundant, I've been arguing (or trying to) that the WA doesn't need to put it into a resolution, since all reasonable nations would be doing so already.

Araraukar wrote:I hope you have your campaign ready to roll.

OOC: Hmm... did IA mention earlier something about providing a telegram campaign?

OOC: Ok, don't submit until you have your campaigning figured out. Submitting and then wondering about how to reach the delegates is a bad idea.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:02 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Ok, don't submit until you have your campaigning figured out. Submitting and then wondering about how to reach the delegates is a bad idea.

Okay, I'll try... :unsure:

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 10:30 am**

Araraukar wrote:
OOC: Hmm... did IA mention earlier something about providing a telegram campaign?

OOC: Ok, don't submit until you have your campaigning figured out. Submitting and then wondering about how to reach the delegates is a bad idea.

This is true. And I am away on holiday.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:14 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Ok, don't submit until you have your campaigning figured out. Submitting and then wondering about how to reach the delegates is a bad idea.

This is true. And I am away on holiday.

Well, how was I supposed to know that...
:unsure:

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:05 pm**

Umeria wrote:*snip*

OOC: This thread is your friend: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=339178

I've only ever done manual counter-campaigns, so I'm not much help to you on this front I'm afraid.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:20 pm**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This thread is your friend: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=339178

OOC: Phew! Thank you for notifying me.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:37 pm**

I submitted it, but accidentally put the word "description" at the beginning. Now the word "description" is repeated. I filed a GHR to have it removed. Was that the right thing to do?

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:42 pm**

Umeria wrote::oops: I submitted it, but accidentally put the word "description" at the beginning. Now the word "description" is repeated. I filed a GHR to have it removed. Was that the right thing to do?

OOC:
Yes, authors are free to GHR request that their submitted proposals be taken down for pretty much any reason, you're fine.

Posted: **Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:45 pm**

Tinfect wrote:
Umeria wrote::oops: I submitted it, but accidentally put the word "description" at the beginning. Now the word "description" is repeated. I filed a GHR to have it removed. Was that the right thing to do?

OOC:
Yes, authors are free to GHR request that their submitted proposals be taken down for pretty much any reason, you're fine.

Phew. So, since tonight was a mistake submission, I'll submit it tomorrow morning. Is that a good time?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:06 am**

Umeria wrote:Phew. So, since tonight was a mistake submission, I'll submit it tomorrow morning. Is that a good time?

OOC: If you have your campaign sorted out, sure.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:18 am**

Proposal submitted. Telegrams sent. The only problem is I accidentally sent one of the telegrams twice(which was followed by an apology telegram). Now I just have to sit and wait...

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:33 am**

Good luck.

Posted: **Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:05 am**

Uh oh. It's been a day and my proposal has only been approved by 17 delegates. At this rate it will not achieve quorum. What's going on? Is this supposed to happen? Did I campaign wrong?

Posted: **Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:14 am**

OOC: How did you send the TG to delegates?

NationStates

[Passed] Quarantine Regulation