[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Umeria]

OOC: I'm new at this. Should I just go to the Moderation forum and post the issue? Or is there some more formal process?

It's better to file a GHR.

Done. In the meantime, Janis keeps hinting about a detailed analysis she made. Can we look at it now?

[Umeria]

Um, Leppikania, the response to the GHR is:

"We recommend you seek assistance from the regulars in the GA Forum because not all Game Moderators are familiar with the inner workings of the General Assembly and its subtle nuances."

And of course I've already talked to you regulars and that advice was:

"I still suggest you to get a Mod ruling on whether your quarantine clause is trying to amend or contradicts the bit of the previous resolution, because if you submit it as is, I'll file that GHR. And probably so will anyone else who cares to read your draft. Proactively seeking a ruling, you will at least appear go give a **** about legality."

I'm going in a loop. Can someone just give me advice instead of directing me to other people?

[Wrapper]

Looks like a non-GA game mod got to your GHR (which, alas, we lowly forum mods cannot access). I'll see what I can do. Please be patient, as there's no reason to rush this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm going in a loop. Can someone just give me advice instead of directing me to other people?

File a query in Moderation.

[Wrapper]

I'm going in a loop. Can someone just give me advice instead of directing me to other people?

File a query in Moderation.

That is unnecessary. Did you read my post?

[Imperium Anglorum]

File a query in Moderation.

That is unnecessary. Did you read my post?

I'll see what I can do.

I don't know what you can do. Therefore, I don't know what has been done, and thus, am not privy to necessaries.

[Wrapper]

That is unnecessary. Did you read my post?

I'll see what I can do.

I don't know what you can do. Therefore, I don't know what has been done, and thus, am not privy to necessaries.

Whether I see it here or see it there makes no difference. It's been seen. No need to post it again.

[Separatist Peoples]

Um, Leppikania, the response to the GHR is:

"We recommend you seek assistance from the regulars in the GA Forum because not all Game Moderators are familiar with the inner workings of the General Assembly and its subtle nuances."

And of course I've already talked to you regulars and that advice was:

"I still suggest you to get a Mod ruling on whether your quarantine clause is trying to amend or contradicts the bit of the previous resolution, because if you submit it as is, I'll file that GHR. And probably so will anyone else who cares to read your draft. Proactively seeking a ruling, you will at least appear go give a **** about legality."

I'm going in a loop. Can someone just give me advice instead of directing me to other people?

OOC: the players are hesitant to hand down a concrete suggestion for what the mods will say because the moderator rulings are not, historically, consistent. Besides, of one of us tells you something breaks X rule, and you disagree, the moderators are the only ones who can settle the argument.

We really need a couple GA Mentors who can be relied upon to settle these arguments on legality without bringing a mod in. Not empowered to make rulings, but differentiated enough such that their interpretations might break the cycle of "it's illegal, bruh," "No it ain't, bruh!".

Might end up being pointless in some cases, but it can't hurt, and it may prevent nations from going to the mods as readily.

[Umeria]

Please be patient, as there's no reason to rush this.

Ambassador Lockwood takes a deep breath. Everything is going to be all right. But then, why is his heart beating so frantically? Why does he have a feeling that things are only going to get worse?

[Separatist Peoples]

Please be patient, as there's no reason to rush this.

Ambassador Lockwood takes a deep breath. Everything is going to be all right. But then, why is his heart beating so frantically? Why does he have a feeling that things are only going to get worse?

Bell hands Lockwood a bottle with no label that he fished out from under his desk.

"Drink this. It'll help."

[Wrapper]

Please be patient, as there's no reason to rush this.

Ambassador Lockwood takes a deep breath. Everything is going to be all right. But then, why is his heart beating so frantically? Why does he have a feeling that things are only going to get worse?

OOC: They generally do get worse when you accept a drink from Ambassador Bell.

Relax. Worst that can happen, since you haven't submitted anything yet, is it's deemed illegal, then you'll have the opportunity to redraft it.

[Araraukar]

Bell hands Lockwood a bottle with no label that he fished out from under his desk.

"Drink this. It'll help."

The weapons nullifiers work in the debate halls, so it probably won't kill you. It may, however, make you wish it had.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bell hands Lockwood a bottle with no label that he fished out from under his desk.

"Drink this. It'll help."

The weapons nullifiers work in the debate halls, so it probably won't kill you. I may, however, make you wish it had.

Parsons chimes in, 'We do have free and complimentary champagne available at all times in our office'.

[Araraukar]

Parsons chimes in, 'We do have free and complimentary champagne available at all times in our office'.

OOC: I see what you did there.

IC: Bad Parsons, no trying to kill other ambassadors away from the weapons nullifiers - after all, you never know what may kill another humanoid species.

[Umeria]

Lockwood looks around at all the talking and laughing diplomats around him. Why can't he be like them? Why can't he be relaxed and confident, always knowing the right thing to say in every situation? He takes a deep breath, and tries to pretend he was back at home, where his words aren't being recorded for government officials across the world.

"Um, listen, I hate to ruin the festivities, but can we focus on the matter at hand? I'd really like to know whether this proposal is legal or not. We can't make any progress here if we're stuck on a legality question no one is willing to answer. So, does anyone have any more information?"

He hopes that wasn't rude. All he can do now is wait, and hope that things will go smoothly from here.

[Separatist Peoples]

Lockwood looks around at all the talking and laughing diplomats around him. Why can't he be like them? Why can't he be relaxed and confident, always knowing the right thing to say in every situation? He takes a deep breath, and tries to pretend he was back at home, where his words aren't being recorded for government officials across the world.

"Um, listen, I hate to ruin the festivities, but can we focus on the matter at hand? I'd really like to know whether this proposal is legal or not. We can't make any progress here if we're stuck on a legality question no one is willing to answer. So, does anyone have any more information?"

He hopes that wasn't rude. All he can do now is wait, and hope that things will go smoothly from here.

"The duplication that exists, and there does exist duplication, is relatively minor and exists to further expound upon the topic. I would, were I creating a ruling, consider that legal."

[Umeria]

"The duplication that exists, and there does exist duplication, is relatively minor and exists to further expound upon the topic. I would, were I creating a ruling, consider that legal."

Phew!

Okay, so can we move on to editing this proposal to remove any faulty wording?

[Herby]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, since when did Benny Bell become the Secretariat? That's just his opinion, author dude, not a ruling. Just chill a bit. The staff, they're volunteers, they get busy with stuff, like real life, and real jobs, and all those political nicknamers in NSG -- **shudder** -- give 'em a chance to make a ruling here. Don't worry so much, you got plenty of time to make changes.

[Wrapper]

I actually did a little research on this. Official ruling:

GAR#53 clause 3d covers the incipient (i.e. very early) stages of an outbreak. This proposal, as written, imposes quarantines when infection levels reach 50% (definitions clause) or when they double (clause 3a). Either scenario would be well beyond the "incipient stages" of an outbreak. There is no overlap, no duplication, and no contradiction of GAR#53 in this proposal as currently written.

Prepare for IC commentary, now that I've done some homework....

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Oh my, quarantines. That reminds me of this one time in my youth-- (Wad Ahume nudges him and points to the draft.) Ah, sorry, reminiscing about more, erm, interesting times. Anyway, let's take this bad boy's temperature and give this a shot, shall we?

UNDERSTANDING that many diseases spread easily if not treated hastily;

NOTING that there are cases where a communicable disease cannot easily be treated;

REALIZING that if a disease is not properly handled it may spread quickly into other nations;

FURTHER NOTING that communicable diseases which cannot be treated promptly should be properly contained;

As preambles go, this one is not too bad, really. You do address why this is an international issue, but in it you really aren't differentiating between, oh, say, the common cold, sexually transmitted diseases, smallpox, and coolio. (Wad Ahume whispers.) Polio, I said, polio. Sorry, it's a disease we've wiped out ages ago. Anyway, perhaps you should mention somewhere in here what types of diseases concern you most. You mention communicable, and that's good, but your focus should be on those that not only tend to be fatal, but are also spread through casual contact, and not sexual contact. Do you really want to, for example, isolate people with sexually transmitted immunodeficiency diseases? We don't think so.

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of appropriately interpreting the material of this resolution:
a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a contagious disease that has harmful long-term effects;
b. an "infected area" as any zone containing at least 10000 people in which 50% or more of those people are infected individuals;
c. a "quarantine" as any area where infected individuals are kept in isolation in order to halt their spread of the disease;

Erm. That's... that's quite the large infected area. By the time you have a 50% infection rate, don't you think the disease is out of control? And how effective would a quarantine be by that time?

Now, we know -- because, you know, every good ambassador knows -- that GAR#53 is intended to address outbreaks at the local level and in the early stages, but there's quite a gap between outbreaks covered under GAR#53 and your 50% infection rate scenario. Now, if you were to cover all stages, of just certain diseases, and spell out the when, where, why, and how of quarantines, we're sure that's permissible, because that would be, erm, "minor overlap" of existing legislation. Keep that in mind if you decide to go that route. That said, you really must lower your infection rate trigger there. Once half your population is dying, it's too little, too late.

2) REQUIRES that all member nations, in reporting an outbreak to the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center, include a description of:
a. the exact location of any infected areas in the nation;
b. any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine;

That's... okay. But, additional information should be reported as well. The nature of the disease, estimated infection rates, et cetera. We are glad you chose to use the existing committee, of course, rather than create a new one. We have enough bureaucracy as it is.

3) FURTHER REQUIRES that all member nations, to the best of their capability:
a. create quarantines in all major infected areas if said infected areas have spread to include at least twice the amount of infected individuals they contained 30 days prior;
b. move all infected individuals into the quarantines;
c. provide any appropriate treatments to infected individuals in quarantines while assuring that the infected individuals do not undergo any unnecessary harm and the people administering these treatments are not infected;

So, when the infection rate hits 50% it's considered an infected area, so thirty days later, if 100% of your population is infected, it's time for a quarantine? One of us is missing something here, ambassador.

4) MANDATES that EPARC to do its best to assist nations that have difficulty providing treatment and/or maintaining quarantines;

We'd eliminate "to do its best to". Make it a mandate for the committee to assist.

5) STRONGLY URGES all member nations capable of providing aid to do so for EPARC and the unlucky nations experiencing epidemics that EPARC is assisting.

Erm. We'd remove this entirely. EPARC is a WA committee and is funded as so. And, there is a WA resolution on providing humanitarian aid which this... might be considered to duplicate. Or contradict. One or the other. Perhaps its esteemed author, Ambassador Bell, can enlighten us on his thoughts there?

Overall, what you have here is merely a good start. You have quite a bit of work to do, Ambassador, but, we'll say, it's for a good cause, indeed.

[Separatist Peoples]

ARI: Oh my, quarantines. That reminds me of this one time in my youth-- (Wad Ahume nudges him and points to the draft.) Ah, sorry, reminiscing about more, erm, interesting times.

"I will trade you one of my remaining cases of authentic Romulan Ale for that story, Ari."

5) STRONGLY URGES all member nations capable of providing aid to do so for EPARC and the unlucky nations experiencing epidemics that EPARC is assisting.

Erm. We'd remove this entirely. EPARC is a WA committee and is funded as so. And, there is a WA resolution on providing humanitarian aid which this... might be considered to duplicate. Or contradict. One or the other. Perhaps its esteemed author, Ambassador Bell, can enlighten us on his thoughts there?

Overall, what you have here is merely a good start. You have quite a bit of work to do, Ambassador, but, we'll say, it's for a good cause, indeed.

"Strictly speaking, it doesn't run afoul of Access to Humanitarian Aid. It encourages nations capable of providing aid to do so, which doesn't get in the way of the IHACC's expanded duties of command and control and soliciting donations. Its a duplication of effort, but not a contradiction or duplication violation, so its probably best either left out or tasked to IHACC. In the case of significant endeavors, IHACC has the authority to assume command of multilateral efforts, so encouraging nations send aid to other nations during humanitarian crises would probably create a logistical clusterfuck. If you absolutely must include a clause like this, you really should leave the task to IHACC, but I think this is much stronger without the inclusion."

[Umeria]

You do address why this is an international issue, but in it you really aren't differentiating between, oh, say, the common cold, sexually transmitted diseases, smallpox, and coolio.

I do in clause 1(a). If I also defined it in the preamble I might be accused of repetition.

Anyway, perhaps you should mention somewhere in here what types of diseases concern you most. You mention communicable, and that's good, but your focus should be on those that not only tend to be fatal, but are also spread through casual contact, and not sexual contact. Do you really want to, for example, isolate people with sexually transmitted immunodeficiency diseases? We don't think so.

This is also something that would fit better in 1(a). I suppose the preamble gives people first impressions but nothing is official until the clauses.

Erm. That's... that's quite the large infected area. By the time you have a 50% infection rate, don't you think the disease is out of control? And how effective would a quarantine be by that time?

This is easy to change. Should I make it at least 5000 people? 1000?

Once half your population is dying, it's too little, too late.

It won't be half the populace. 10000 people is at most 0.2% of a nation's population. Again, if this is too much, please tell me the number I should put in instead.

That's... okay. But, additional information should be reported as well. The nature of the disease, estimated infection rates, et cetera.

If I did that it would be duplicating clause 4 of GAR#53.

So, when the infection rate hits 50% it's considered an infected area, so thirty days later, if 100% of your population is infected, it's time for a quarantine? One of us is missing something here, ambassador.

I think you're missing the essence of clause 1(b). The 50% rate is not how many people in a nation are infected; it's how many people in any zone containing at least 10000 people are infected. There can be multiple infected areas in one nation, and even infected areas overlapping nations. Besides, the infection rate increasing from 50% to 100% isn't the only way an infected area can be quarantined, it can also just expand to include 20000 people instead of 10000 while still at a 50% infection rate. Also, I think this rules out sexually transmitted immunodeficiency diseases. I don't think that type of disease will spread that fast.

We'd eliminate "to do its best to". Make it a mandate for the committee to assist.

Done.

Erm. We'd remove this entirely. EPARC is a WA committee and is funded as so. And, there is a WA resolution on providing humanitarian aid which this... might be considered to duplicate. Or contradict. One or the other. Perhaps its esteemed author, Ambassador Bell, can enlighten us on his thoughts there?

"Strictly speaking, it doesn't run afoul of Access to Humanitarian Aid. It encourages nations capable of providing aid to do so, which doesn't get in the way of the IHACC's expanded duties of command and control and soliciting donations. Its a duplication of effort, but not a contradiction or duplication violation, so its probably best either left out or tasked to IHACC. In the case of significant endeavors, IHACC has the authority to assume command of multilateral efforts, so encouraging nations send aid to other nations during humanitarian crises would probably create a logistical cluster****. If you absolutely must include a clause like this, you really should leave the task to IHACC, but I think this is much stronger without the inclusion."

Okay, both of you seem to agree that I should remove clause 5. Done. If there's already a resolution that encourages help to these nations, there's no need to put it there.

I am open to more feedback.

[Araraukar]

It won't be half the populace. 10000 people is at most 0.2% of a nation's population. Again, if this is too much, please tell me the number I should put in instead.

Except in a nation whose population is 10,000 or less.

I think you're missing the essence of clause 1(b). The 50% rate is not how many people in a nation are infected; it's how many people in any zone containing at least 10000 people are infected.

And if a nation under 10,000 people in it is hit by an epidemic, this proposal wouldn't affect it at all? (OOC: This is why hard limit numbers are a bad idea.)

Also, I think this rules out sexually transmitted immunodeficiency diseases. I don't think that type of disease will spread that fast.

Your definitions say nothing about the disease needing to be one that spreads fast.

[Umeria]

Except in a nation whose population is 10,000 or less.

OOC: All nations start with 5000000 people.
IC: If a nation is that small it probably needs help from EPARC anyway.

And if a nation under 10,000 people in it is hit by an epidemic, this proposal wouldn't affect it at all? (OOC: This is why hard limit numbers are a bad idea.)

Okay, in cases of really small nations, I added "and/or 10% of a member nation's population". I think that covers everyone.

Your definitions say nothing about the disease needing to be one that spreads fast.

If 10000 people get infected in 30 days, it is spreading fast.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If 10000 people get infected in 30 days, it is spreading fast.

There's a nation in Europe with around 31 billion citizens. 10000 people catch the flu there every day. It isn't spreading fast at all.