[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Umeria]

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.

First, the largest nation in the world currently has 29.695 billion citizens. The largest nation in Europe currently has 29.168 billion citizens. I suppose that's not the point.
Second, I'm going to get rid of the 10000 people part altogether and just make it 10% of a nation's population. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone.

[Araraukar]

OOC: All nations start with 5000000 people.

OOC: Using that as an excuse would count as metagaming, since that's a gameside factoid. We're talking about RP reality. There definitely are nations with fewer than 10,000 people. Hell, if you only count persons, then PPU is a nation of one.

Second, I'm going to get rid of the 10000 people part altogether and just make it 10% of a nation's population. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone.

OOC: So only areas that contain 10% of a nation's population, will be considered? And 50% of them need to be infected before anything gets done? That's 5% of a nation's population, which in some intergalactic nations may be tens of billions or more.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: All nations start with 5000000 people.

OOC: Using that as an excuse would count as metagaming, since that's a gameside factoid. We're talking about RP reality. There definitely are nations with fewer than 10,000 people. Hell, if you only count persons, then PPU is a nation of one.

Second, I'm going to get rid of the 10000 people part altogether and just make it 10% of a nation's population. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone.

OOC: So only areas that contain 10% of a nation's population, will be considered? And 50% of them need to be infected before anything gets done? That's 5% of a nation's population, which in some intergalactic nations may be tens of billions or more.

OOC: Influenza in 1919 didn't get that bad, I don't think.

[New Axiom]

OOC: what if this affected the annual Halloween zombie event somehow? Or, IC: Lazarus Virus Outbreaks

[Araraukar]

OOC: Influenza in 1919 didn't get that bad, I don't think.

OOC: According to Wikipedia "It infected 500 million people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and resulted in the deaths of 50 to 100 million (three to five percent of the world's population)", so if 100 million (dead) was 5% of the world's population, 500 million (infected) was 25%.

The Plague on the other hand killed 30-60% of Europe's total population, or about 20% of the world's population at the time. In some countries an estimated 80% of people died while in some only 20%, so it varied a lot from region to region. It probably had 80% or higher lethality rate (that is, 80% of those who got it, died of it), based on some modern day values of untreated cases. It amuses me that people in this day and age still can catch the Black Death...

OOC: what if this affected the annual Halloween zombie event somehow? Or, IC: Lazarus Virus Outbreaks

OOC: The zombie H'ween thing is a gameside "minigame".

[Umeria]

So only areas that contain 10% of a nation's population, will be considered? And 50% of them need to be infected before anything gets done? That's 5% of a nation's population, which in some intergalactic nations may be tens of billions or more.

Okay, so a percentage doesn't work...

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.)

...a static number doesn't work...

the "large number" is very... loopholeable.

...and an adjective doesn't work. No matter how I define the areas that should be quarantined, there's always a hypothetical situation where it doesn't make sense. Hmm...

How about this:

"any zone in a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being"

Ambassador Lockwood crosses his fingers.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"any zone in a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being"

Significantly? Well, uh, what does significantly mean?

[Umeria]

"any zone in a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being"

Significantly? Well, uh, what does significantly mean?

significantly
adverb sig·nif·i·cant·ly \sig-ˈni-fi-kənt-lē\
Simple Definition: in a way that is large or important enough to be noticed or have an effect
—used to say that something is important or meaningful
: in a way that has a special or hidden meaning
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

[Tinfect]

[snip]

OOC:
He was referencing the fact that Significantly is an incredibly vague term that might as well be meaningless.

[Araraukar]

Simple Definition: in a way that is large or important enough to be noticed or have an effect

OOC: If one person in a key position gets sick, that's both "important enough to be noticed" and "has an effect".

OOC: He was referencing the fact that Significantly is an incredibly vague term that might as well be meaningless.

OOC still: It can be used, but it's, again, very loophole-able. A nation might set the "significant" to "we're all about to die" if they don't like what the resolution forces them to do, or "one person in a city of 10,000,000" if they like what the resolution lets them to do.

[Separatist Peoples]

Simple Definition: in a way that is large or important enough to be noticed or have an effect

OOC: If one person in a key position gets sick, that's both "important enough to be noticed" and "has an effect".

OOC: He was referencing the fact that Significantly is an incredibly vague term that might as well be meaningless.

OOC still: It can be used, but it's, again, very loophole-able. A nation might set the "significant" to "we're all about to die" if they don't like what the resolution forces them to do, or "one person in a city of 10,000,000" if they like what the resolution lets them to do.

OOC: This is a great instance where the Reasonable Nation Theory applies. Nations don't want their country to be overwhelmed by disease. They aren't likely to deliberately abuse the definition so they can ignore an infection. On the other side, one person with Ebola in a city of ten million is considered an epidemic according to WHO and US CDC standards because of how virulent and infectious the disease is, so I'm not seeing a problem with that interpretation. Quarantines are expensive, difficult, and deeply unpopular. A nation isn't likely to use them on a large scale arbitrarily.

And, of course, WA resolutions are directives to create law. The details of what constitutes a crisis varies from one nation to another, so it's perfectly reasonable to leave some wiggle room to allow different public health systems to adapt.

[Umeria]

Nations don't want their country to be overwhelmed by disease. They aren't likely to deliberately abuse the definition so they can ignore an infection. On the other side, one person with Ebola in a city of ten million is considered an epidemic according to WHO and US CDC standards because of how virulent and infectious the disease is, so I'm not seeing a problem with that interpretation. Quarantines are expensive, difficult, and deeply unpopular. A nation isn't likely to use them on a large scale arbitrarily.

And, of course, WA resolutions are directives to create law. The details of what constitutes a crisis varies from one nation to another, so it's perfectly reasonable to leave some wiggle room to allow different public health systems to adapt.

I'm with Bell on this one. Clearly numbers and statistics don't work in this case because there is no way to anticipate every nation's predicament. Besides, the EPARC's inspectors would likely tell the nation to make quarantines if the problem was really serious and the nation was ignoring it.

It can be used, but it's, again, very loophole-able. A nation might set the "significant" to "we're all about to die" if they don't like what the resolution forces them to do, or "one person in a city of 10,000,000" if they like what the resolution lets them to do.

Making a quarantine right away is not a loophole. Stalling is also not a loophole because if a nation's leader hears about many critical outbreaks of a disease, the well-being of the nation has clearly decreased, and they are legally required to make quarantines.

Can we say that 1(b) is finished and move on to editing other things?

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is a great instance where the Reasonable Nation Theory applies. Nations don't want their country to be overwhelmed by disease. They aren't likely to deliberately abuse the definition so they can ignore an infection.

OOC: Unless they have their own reasons to do so - say there's a disease that affects mostly unwantedpopulationX, the government might be a bit slow to act. And since no-one would be put in quarantine, they wouldn't be blamed for CoCR violation either. Or, the opposite, put entire cities under quarantine, which may include establishing military rule or whatnot, to enforce the quarantine. Also, if the disease is one of the really bad ones like RL Ebola, 3.c. might lead them to decide that "while assuring that ... the people administering these treatments are not infected" means not letting/forcing any healthcare personnell to enter the area, leaving the people inside to either survive on their own or die off. (This has been the traditional way that Africans in the Kongo area have been dealing with Ebola for centuries if not millennia; isolate the sick village until either everyone's dead, or the disease dies out.)

On the other side, one person with Ebola in a city of ten million is considered an epidemic according to WHO and US CDC standards because of how virulent and infectious the disease is, so I'm not seeing a problem with that interpretation.

Well, to be fair, by the time you know of one person with Ebola, there are likely to already be several you don't know of. And as it currently stands, the proposal sees no difference between Ebola and HIV. Or, for that matter, syphilis, or any other infectious disease not depending on whether they're treatable or not. (Personally I see the biggest issue with slow-acting and slow-spreading ones like HIV.)

Quarantines are expensive, difficult, and deeply unpopular. A nation isn't likely to use them on a large scale arbitrarily.

Unless, like I said, they have their own reasons to do so.

And, of course, WA resolutions are directives to create law.

This is a very new perspective to use, I hadn't seen this as an argument until the whole "does animal abuse ban protect ants" came up, and I'm still not convinced that it should be used for proposals that leave large loopholes (not talking about the word "significant" here) for nations to exploit, because then what's to stop people submitting crappy proposals and saying "WA resolutions are just guidelines for national laws, you can interprete it as you want"?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This is a great instance where the Reasonable Nation Theory applies. Nations don't want their country to be overwhelmed by disease. They aren't likely to deliberately abuse the definition so they can ignore an infection.

OOC: Unless they have their own reasons to do so - say there's a disease that affects mostly unwantedpopulationX, the government might be a bit slow to act. And since no-one would be put in quarantine, they wouldn't be blamed for CoCR violation either.

OOC: Creating conditions conducive to the elimination of a particular group is considered genocide thanks to Convention on Genocide. That wouldn't be legal.

Or, the opposite, put entire cities under quarantine, which may include establishing military rule or whatnot, to enforce the quarantine. Also, if the disease is one of the really bad ones like RL Ebola, 3.c. might lead them to decide that "while assuring that ... the people administering these treatments are not infected" means not letting/forcing any healthcare personnell to enter the area, leaving the people inside to either survive on their own or die off. (This has been the traditional way that Africans in the Kongo area have been dealing with Ebola for centuries if not millennia; isolate the sick village until either everyone's dead, or the disease dies out.)

OOC: The WA doesn't disallow military rule as the status quo. Why would temporary military rule be a concern? If the safest course of action really is to seal the area off and let everybody die out, that is the safest option. Its awful, but it's not like plenty of developed nations don't have exactly that contingency plan on hand. Again, its deeply unpopular and very dangerous, so it isn't likely to be used without serious consideration. I don't like it, but sometimes there are no other options.

Well, to be fair, by the time you know of one person with Ebola, there are likely to already be several you don't know of. And as it currently stands, the proposal sees no difference between Ebola and HIV. Or, for that matter, syphilis, or any other infectious disease not depending on whether they're treatable or not. (Personally I see the biggest issue with slow-acting and slow-spreading ones like HIV.)

OOC: But there isn't a good way to differentiate between those diseases in 3,500 characters. There isn't a virulence scale we can apply here to draw a line arbitrarily, which just supports the notion that it would be more efficient to allow member states to handle the details on their own and use language like "significant".

Unless, like I said, they have their own reasons to do so.

OOC: One option is already illegal. The other is an unfortunate necessity. Hell, even in the idealized world of Star Trek, that call had to be made a few times, and they had techno-magic born of network writers.

This is a very new perspective to use, I hadn't seen this as an argument until the whole "does animal abuse ban protect ants" came up, and I'm still not convinced that it should be used for proposals that leave large loopholes (not talking about the word "significant" here) for nations to exploit, because then what's to stop people submitting crappy proposals and saying "WA resolutions are just guidelines for national laws, you can interprete it as you want"?

OOC: I don't think that is an entirely fair description of the stance. Obviously the tighter a resolution is, the more effectively the goal of the author can be gleaned. But the WA has no judicial branch by which to interpret laws whatsoever. The interpretation has to be handled by the member states. We already know that the gnomes' operation is to change the laws of member governments to bring us into compliance. The Compliance Commission telegram even says so, and if we add on the fact that WA law operates though the jurisdiction of member states in the first place, we have a pretty solid case for it. At every step, the vehicle for obeying international law is through the respective governments of member states, and not through an international force taking over enforcement on the WA's behalf.

You can't interpret laws any way you want, because there is a good-faith compliance consideration. However, nothing says that you can't handle enforcement in different ways. Extant law requires that trials of those accused of breaking a law must be, as I recall, free and fair and open, or some variation therein. For the sake of argument, lets say that is it. How do you determine if a trial is "open"? A nation could hold the trial in such a manner that it is open for anybody to observe and witness the fairness firsthand. A nation could keep the trial closed, but make the record accessible in the public record. Which approach is wrong? Which is right? There is interpretive leeway there that is inherent to the system. We, as authors, seek to limit it as much as necessary without crossing into the realm of excluding good-faith alternatives that accomplish the end goal.

[Umeria]

Mr. Bell, I would like to give my utmost gratitude to you for defending my cause.

Now, Ms. Leveret, so far you haven't given any decent explanations on why anyone would try to squirm through such a tiny loophole just to not care for their citizens.

ay there's a disease that affects mostly unwantedpopulationX, the government might be a bit slow to act. And since no-one would be put in quarantine, they wouldn't be blamed for CoCR violation either.

GAR#38 aside, Epidemic Response Act urges nations to care for infected individuals whether or not they're in a quarantine.

Also, if the disease is one of the really bad ones like RL Ebola, 3.c. might lead them to decide that "while assuring that ... the people administering these treatments are not infected" means not letting/forcing any healthcare personnell to enter the area, leaving the people inside to either survive on their own or die off.

I notice you put those dots there to conveniently cover up "the infected individuals do not undergo any unnecessary harm and". Not having healthcare personnel enter the quarantine is neglect. Neglecting infected individuals causes unnecessary harm.

For the third time, can we move on from this clause that is the best it can be right now and move on to things that actually need work?

[Araraukar]

Now, Ms. Leveret, so far you haven't given any decent explanations on why anyone would try to squirm through such a tiny loophole just to not care for their citizens.

OOC: I'm being difficult on purpose; when you submit, you will have people coming here who will do whatever they can to find loopholes just so they can continue doing whatever they want. And if you manage to get this passed, someone will likely try an insta-repeal as that seems to be in fashion right now, so the better you get your arguments during the drafting process, the easier it will be for you to defend this later on.

GAR#38 aside, Epidemic Response Act urges nations to care for infected individuals whether or not they're in a quarantine.

Except you've got a Secretariat ruling that ERA only applies at the starting stages of the epidemic. That's why your whole proposal is deemed legal in the first place. So you can't really say "ERA already does that", if the whole premise of your legality is "ERA applies at the start, this applies later".

I notice you put those dots there to conveniently cover up "the infected individuals do not undergo any unnecessary harm and". Not having healthcare personnel enter the quarantine is neglect. Neglecting infected individuals causes unnecessary harm.

"Unnecessary harm" would mean actually harming them actively. If you cannot guarantee healthcare workers' safety, you don't have to send any of them in.

For the third time, can we move on from this clause that is the best it can be right now and move on to things that actually need work?

Just be aware, then, that the loopholes exist.

OOC: SP, I'll get back to your reply later, when I'm awake enough to check stuffses.

OOC EDIT: Below is part of my earlier vivisection, which I ended up not posting before the legality issue was settled.

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;

Since they're areas, not individuals, the "exact location" seems too precise. (OOC: Think of a real life scenario, where, say, the USA state of Texas was declared an infected area, would you really have to pinpoint "the exact location" of the state?) Perhaps "location and boundaries" would work?

b. any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine;

If the individuals are not in the quarantined area, that implies that they're "at large" and thus you're unlikely to know who they are, so descriptions are probably too much to ask. Furthermore, why would an international organization need to know what they look like? They don't have any manpower (OOC: WA is not allowed to have police or military) to help search for them.

[Umeria]

OOC: I'm being difficult on purpose; when you submit, you will have people coming here who will do whatever they can to find loopholes just so they can continue doing whatever they want. And if you manage to get this passed, someone will likely try an insta-repeal as that seems to be in fashion right now, so the better you get your arguments during the drafting process, the easier it will be for you to defend this later on.

Well, um, thanks for being a good example.

Except you've got a Secretariat ruling that ERA only applies at the starting stages of the epidemic. That's why your whole proposal is deemed legal in the first place. So you can't really say "ERA already does that", if the whole premise of your legality is "ERA applies at the start, this applies later".

The Secretariat ruling was about 3(d) of ERA. I'm talking about 3(a) of ERA. My resolution doesn't say anything about what happens outside of a quarantine because ERA already does. So I can say "ERA already does that".

"Unnecessary harm" would mean actually harming them actively.

If you have the ability to help them and not helping them would make the infection worse, not doing anything is unnecessary harm.

If you cannot guarantee healthcare workers' safety, you don't have to send any of them in.

It says "to the best of their capability". Mistakes happen, but you still have to try your best to keep them safe.

Just be aware, then, that the loopholes exist.

Just because an adjective doesn't give hard definitions on what you should do doesn't mean you can call it vague and completely ignore it. If people see a notable problem it's significant.

Since they're areas, not individuals, the "exact location" seems too precise. (OOC: Think of a real life scenario, where, say, the USA state of Texas was declared an infected area, would you really have to pinpoint "the exact location" of the state?) Perhaps "location and boundaries" would work?

"Location and perimeters" would work better. "Boundaries" sounds like the area is a predefined district.

If the individuals are not in the quarantined area, that implies that they're "at large" and thus you're unlikely to know who they are, so descriptions are probably too much to ask. Furthermore, why would an international organization need to know what they look like? They don't have any manpower (OOC: WA is not allowed to have police or military) to help search for them.

I think we've been through this already:

Were you planning on making all the member nations screen everyone within their borders for every possible infectious disease and disease vector known to sapient beings?

No, I said "any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine". They don't have to do a thorough search; they just need to report people who are likely disease victims.

[Araraukar]

Well, um, thanks for being a good example.

OOC: You're welcome.

The Secretariat ruling was about 3(d) of ERA. I'm talking about 3(a) of ERA. My resolution doesn't say anything about what happens outside of a quarantine because ERA already does. So I can say "ERA already does that".

OOC: Do you honestly want having to submit a GHR for each and every point, or rather take the legality ruling as applying to the whole proposal?

"Unnecessary harm" would mean actually harming them actively.

If you have the ability to help them and not helping them would make the infection worse, not doing anything is unnecessary harm.

And if you don't have the ability to help them without subjecting healthy people you cannot reliably protect from the disease to infection, your proposal language still says you don't have to.

It says "to the best of their capability". Mistakes happen, but you still have to try your best to keep them safe.

See above.

Just because an adjective doesn't give hard definitions on what you should do doesn't mean you can call it vague and completely ignore it. If people see a notable problem it's significant.

So in other words, the loophole here is significant, because I see it as a notable problem. Got it.

Perhaps "location and boundaries" would work?

"Location and perimeters" would work better. "Boundaries" sounds like the area is a predefined district.

Funny, to me "perimeters" sounds like you're going to put barbed wire and guards with shoot-to-kill orders around the area. (OOC: Boundaries and perimeter are pretty much synonyms, but the latter is more commonly used by military.) Howabout a 3rd option: borders. You'll probably claim it sounds like national borders or something, but it literally means "the outer edge of something", which is what I think you're going for here, rather than its military application.

Additionally, your continued use of "zone" in "b. an "infected area" as any zone in a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being;" implies that it indeed is a pre-existing area, such as a district, a municipality, county, state or whatnot.

That all assuming that for some reason it benefits anyone that an international committee knowing that is useful for some undefined reason. You don't have the EPARC actually do anything with that information, so why is it needed? (OOC: You could streamline your proposal by leaving 2) out entirely.)

I think we've been through this already:

No, this is a separate point. The one you quoted after that (which I snipped off) was before you specified you only intended this proposal to be about serious infectious diseases. This is also a continuance of my point above, so I repeat: Why would an international organization need to know what they look like? They don't have any manpower to help search for them. Also, wouldn't ID'ing them (name, address, etc.) be far more useful than a description? "About 5 feet 10 inches tall, black hair, grey eyes, medium complexion, a bit on the thin side" doesn't sound anywhere as useful as "Norman Normalsson from Mediocre City, Nonesuch Avenue number 5, flat 3, ID number 1358276509".

---

OOC: Creating conditions conducive to the elimination of a particular group is considered genocide thanks to Convention on Genocide. That wouldn't be legal.

Fully OOC: Except with the nations able to decide what counts as significant, as well as decide what counts as infected zone, as well as decide what counts as quarantine, as well as decide if they can guarantee health personnel's health well enough to send them in, as well as what counts as "any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine", it all leads to a place where a nation can claim to be making a good faith effort by quaranteeing off certain areas which just happen to contain a majority of populationgroup X, who are most likely to have caught infectious disease Y, as they have genetic or socioeconomical (think poverty) conditions that make them good targets for the disease, plus they live in the same city district or "zone" as the one person who was found to be ill and who happened to be someone notable. The nation can then throw food parcels over the barbed wire fence, and make sure that electricity and fresh water work in the quarantinze zone, and treat sewage from the area in a way that it can't cause more issues.

And that's with going with the definitions the author has given me so far, no creative compliance needed yet. If the nation feels it can't make sure the healthcare people stay healthy, it doesn't have to send them in.

OOC: The WA doesn't disallow military rule as the status quo. Why would temporary military rule be a concern?

I can't remember if I argued this OOCly or ICly to start with, but ICly it would obviously be a huge issue to Janis (and PPU, if you want to go there) due to her upbringing of "military = evil". OOCly, it's an issue because it tends to not be temporary... (And because military being in charge of the quarantines makes me think "concentration camps".)

If the safest course of action really is to seal the area off and let everybody die out, that is the safest option.

The author is now trying to argue that you're not allowed to do it, despite what their proposal says.

(Personally I see the biggest issue with slow-acting and slow-spreading ones like HIV.)

But there isn't a good way to differentiate between those diseases in 3,500 characters. There isn't a virulence scale we can apply here to draw a line arbitrarily, which just supports the notion that it would be more efficient to allow member states to handle the details on their own and use language like "significant".

Then that "significant" should also be in the definition of "infected individual" - that would let nations decide what diseases are serious enough that they want to include them under the umbrella of this thing.

and they had techno-magic born of network writers.

(Just as an aside, this one made me crack up. )

OOC: I don't think that is an entirely fair description of the stance.
*snip*
You can't interpret laws any way you want, because there is a good-faith compliance consideration. However, nothing says that you can't handle enforcement in different ways.

Going by what (I think it was) Sciongrad was saying in that other thread, if all that WA law can do is "outlaw" something, but not "criminalize" it, then WA can ban whatever it wants and the nation will still be in good-faith compliance by sending an email to whoever breaks the WA-resolution-national-effect-law, saying "Tut-tut, you shouldn't do that again, consider yourself a very bad boy/girl/other."

[Separatist Peoples]

Fully OOC: Except with the nations able to decide what counts as significant, as well as decide what counts as infected zone, as well as decide what counts as quarantine, as well as decide if they can guarantee health personnel's health well enough to send them in, as well as what counts as "any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine", it all leads to a place where a nation can claim to be making a good faith effort by quaranteeing off certain areas which just happen to contain a majority of populationgroup X, who are most likely to have caught infectious disease Y, as they have genetic or socioeconomical (think poverty) conditions that make them good targets for the disease, plus they live in the same city district or "zone" as the one person who was found to be ill and who happened to be someone notable. The nation can then throw food parcels over the barbed wire fence, and make sure that electricity and fresh water work in the quarantinze zone, and treat sewage from the area in a way that it can't cause more issues.

OOC: That is already the status quo. I don't know if you could get away with that level of manipulation more than once before it becomes systemic and qualifies as genocide. I don't know if you could get away with it once. Just because an action is in compliance with one law doesn't mean it is in compliance with another. I can't accept that such a situation isn't in violation with Convention on Genocide, regardless of what this law considers.

And that's with going with the definitions the author has given me so far, no creative compliance needed yet. If the nation feels it can't make sure the healthcare people stay healthy, it doesn't have to send them in.

OOC: The healthcare provider's first concern needs to be themselves. They cannot help cure if they themselves are ill. There isn't anything wrong with that, because there isn't a situation where a dead doctor is helpful. I just can't see anything wrong with that.

I can't remember if I argued this OOCly or ICly to start with, but ICly it would obviously be a huge issue to Janis (and PPU, if you want to go there) due to her upbringing of "military = evil". OOCly, it's an issue because it tends to not be temporary... (And because military being in charge of the quarantines makes me think "concentration camps".)

OOC: Probably OOCly. I don't think I've made an IC post here yet.

It may be a problem for Janis, but we know we can't actually throw out military juntas in the WA, even if it isn't temporary. It is a fact of life in the WA that they exist and are allowed to exist. Not an ideal argument to get hung up on with a new author.

The author is now trying to argue that you're not allowed to do it, despite what their proposal says.

OOC: Hell, I can't answer for the author. That's how it reads to me.

Then that "significant" should also be in the definition of "infected individual" - that would let nations decide what diseases are serious enough that they want to include them under the umbrella of this thing.

OOC: I can buy that.

and they had techno-magic born of network writers.

(Just as an aside, this one made me crack up. )

OOC: Well, they did. That show was just as bad as Dr. Who and his bullshit "Teh Power of the Tardis' Heart set Everything Right!" with that. I won't rant, but I always hated that tactic. Reverse warp field polarity and re-calibrate the shields my ass...

Going by what (I think it was) Sciongrad was saying in that other thread, if all that WA law can do is "outlaw" something, but not "criminalize" it, then WA can ban whatever it wants and the nation will still be in good-faith compliance by sending an email to whoever breaks the WA-resolution-national-effect-law, saying "Tut-tut, you shouldn't do that again, consider yourself a very bad boy/girl/other."

OOC: But they can. This has been how many nations have decided to approach compliance. I've even done it, though I can't remember for what for the life of me. That's why my rules of war have such redundant sounding clauses: Shall be considered an illegal war crime, and be prosecuted accordingly. There's been an expectation that banning something necessarily criminalizes it, but that hasn't even been the case in real life. Look at Prohibition in the US, or even marijuana. We expect, as players, that simply banning something is sufficient to outlaw and criminalize it, because it makes playing the game easier, but in reality, it isn't nearly that cut and dry. "The law does what the law says" is a good way for explaining the importance of clarity in laws, but it ignores the fact that, practically, states have to consider the Law as Intended to function with any semblance of justice. The alternative is a hard Lawful Neutral/Judge Dredd approach. "You jaywalked three times. Life in prison."

[Sciongrad]

Going by what (I think it was) Sciongrad was saying in that other thread, if all that WA law can do is "outlaw" something, but not "criminalize" it, then WA can ban whatever it wants and the nation will still be in good-faith compliance by sending an email to whoever breaks the WA-resolution-national-effect-law, saying "Tut-tut, you shouldn't do that again, consider yourself a very bad boy/girl/other."

OOC: That isn't quite what I said. I argued that a nation can be in good faith compliance without prosecuting every single instance where a resolution is violated. Slapping ethnic cleansers on the wrist is not good faith compliance.

[Umeria]

The Secretariat ruling was about 3(d) of ERA. I'm talking about 3(a) of ERA. My resolution doesn't say anything about what happens outside of a quarantine because ERA already does. So I can say "ERA already does that".

OOC: Do you honestly want having to submit a GHR for each and every point, or rather take the legality ruling as applying to the whole proposal?

When I said 3(d) of ERA I meant 3(d) of ERA, not 3(d) of this proposal. Of course the legality ruling applies to the whole proposal, but the ruling itself only said that the proposal does not contradict 3(d) of ERA. Of course it also doesn't contradict 3(a) of ERA, since that part is outside of quarantines, which my proposal doesn't cover. My only point was that nations wouldn't stall on making quarantines so they wouldn't have to care for their citizens because they would already have to care for their citizens due to 3(a) of ERA.

And if you don't have the ability to help them without subjecting healthy people you cannot reliably protect from the disease to infection, your proposal language still says you don't have to.

First, there are cases where the disease cannot be treated in any way so it would be better if they wouldn't have to help them.
Second, they don't have to guarantee the health workers safety because the "proposal language" says you only need to assure their safety "to the best of their capability". You still have to send in the health personnel.
Third, if they don't have the resources to help their infected individuals and/or health personnel, the EPARC will assist them because of clause 4.

So in other words, the loophole here is significant, because I see it as a notable problem. Got it.

Numbers clearly don't work, and I don't think there is any word that can describe this better than "significant" can. There is nothing that can close that loophole.

Funny, to me "perimeters" sounds like you're going to put barbed wire and guards with shoot-to-kill orders around the area. (OOC: Boundaries and perimeter are pretty much synonyms, but the latter is more commonly used by military.) Howabout a 3rd option: borders. You'll probably claim it sounds like national borders or something, but it literally means "the outer edge of something", which is what I think you're going for here, rather than its military application.

Borders it is. Done.

Additionally, your continued use of "zone" in "b. an "infected area" as any zone in a member nation containing enough infected individuals to significantly decrease the nation's well-being;" implies that it indeed is a pre-existing area, such as a district, a municipality, county, state or whatnot.

I'll change it to "space". I don't think you can get any more non-predefined than "space".

That all assuming that for some reason it benefits anyone that an international committee knowing that is useful for some undefined reason. You don't have the EPARC actually do anything with that information, so why is it needed?

Because without that information, the EPARC won't know where the quarantines are. Some nations are really big. If the EPARC can't find the quarantines, they can't help impoverished nations. There's also a slight chance that the EPARC's inspectors will accidentally enter a quarantine and get sick.

(OOC: You could streamline your proposal by leaving 2) out entirely.)

You have a lot of good arguments for leaving 2(b) out, so I'll remove that. The rest still needs to be there; see above.

Except with the nations able to decide what counts as significant,

The nations do not get to decide what counts as significant. A nation can't decide that a word means something different from its definition. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask member nations to use common sense.

as well as decide what counts as infected zone,

The nations do not get to decide what counts as an infected zone. I defined it in 1(b).

as well as decide what counts as quarantine,

The nations do not get to decide what counts as a quarantine. I defined it in 1(c).

as well as decide if they can guarantee health personnel's health well enough to send them in,

They have to send them in. They do not have to guarantee their safety. They just have to assure, to the best of their capability, that they are safe. If there is any better way to write that than what I wrote in 3(c), please tell me.

as well as what counts as "any possible infected individuals who are not in a quarantine",

This is moot because I deleted 2(b).

it all leads to a place where a nation can claim to be making a good faith effort by quaranteeing off certain areas which just happen to contain a majority of populationgroup X, who are most likely to have caught infectious disease Y, as they have genetic or socioeconomical (think poverty) conditions that make them good targets for the disease, plus they live in the same city district or "zone" as the one person who was found to be ill and who happened to be someone notable.

This statement is completely and totally false. See above.

The nation can then throw food parcels over the barbed wire fence, and make sure that electricity and fresh water work in the quarantinze zone, and treat sewage from the area in a way that it can't cause more issues.

That might actually work if there are no other treatments to make. Maybe it's a disease that makes people temporarily insane or something. I changed it to say "provide every appropriate treatment"; hopefully that will clear things up. If I should define "appropriate treatment" in clause 1, let me know.

And that's with going with the definitions the author has given me so far, no creative compliance needed yet. If the nation feels it can't make sure the healthcare people stay healthy, it doesn't have to send them in.

Yes it does. See above.

I can't remember if I argued this OOCly or ICly to start with, but ICly it would obviously be a huge issue to Janis (and PPU, if you want to go there) due to her upbringing of "military = evil". OOCly, it's an issue because it tends to not be temporary... (And because military being in charge of the quarantines makes me think "concentration camps".)

There are qualified health personnel in the military too. Are you saying we shouldn't allow those doctors to help infected individuals? What if military doctors are the only doctors that nation has? Also, there are nations that don't differentiate between military force and police force. Maybe the military is the only way the nation can get people into quarantines(in many cases people don't want to be put in quarantines, especially with mental diseases). Besides, it won't be a concentration camp because you can't purposefully hurt the infected individuals by neglect or slaughter due to 3(c).

The author is now trying to argue that you're not allowed to do it, despite what their proposal says.

The author? You mean me? When did I say that?

Then that "significant" should also be in the definition of "infected individual" - that would let nations decide what diseases are serious enough that they want to include them under the umbrella of this thing.

"Harmful" works better in this case, and it serves the same purpose.

Lockwood checks his notes. He thinks he covered everything, but he isn't sure.

[Umeria]

Lockwood wonders if he finally got the cheese he ordered. Out here it's impossible for him to get a good hunk of mozzarella. Once again he wishes he was back home in Umeria, where the air was so much fresher than this stale-
He reminds himself to focus. This is his job. He has to be patient, and wait for all these experts to belittle him some more, and then eventually they'll all agree on something... eventually.
Lockwood resists the urge to hum.

[Araraukar]

1) DEFINES, for the purposes of appropriately interpreting the material of this resolution

Unnecessarily wordy, just make it "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution" like normal people.

a. an "infected individual" as any person afflicted with a contagious disease that has harmful long-term effects

Inject the word "significant" in there somewhere so that it's up to the nations themselves to decide what's a significantly harmful disease that requires quarantine, and what's not. It matters because you're wanting to shove into the quarantine [facilities] everyone who has any contagious disease that can be harmful, nevermind how difficult it may be to spread it to other people.

Charter Of Civil Rights wrote:

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

If you're dodging that with this, then you at least need to let the nations decide what counts as compelling practical purpose.

OOC: To put this into perspective, imagine what would happen in real life if your RL nation's government set aside some concentration camps quarantine facilities in most urban areas and made everyone with any sort of disease that can have some sort of harmful effects (from HIV to hemorraghic fevers to influenza to chicken pox to strep throat to syphilis) to go in there, presumably until they got better or died. Except those whose disease can't be cured, would never be allowed to leave.

Do you think that would go over well? Or would there be a huge uproar about parents having to send their sick toddlers away from home just because the disease their child has, can - if untreated (your proposal says nothing about treatability) - have harmful long-term effects.

And those that were just suspected of being ill, would have their pictures sent to the Interpol, until they could be stuffed in with the sick people. (Yes, I know you removed this bit, but it was in the original, so including it here for your food for thought.)

Do you think that would work without a problem?

EDIT: You still have the "areas spreading twice infected individuals" thing in there, which should read something like "number of infected individuals doubling".

[Umeria]

Unnecessarily wordy, just make it "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution" like normal people.

Done.

Inject the word "significant" in there somewhere so that it's up to the nations themselves to decide what's a significantly harmful disease that requires quarantine, and what's not. It matters because you're wanting to shove into the quarantine [facilities] everyone who has any contagious disease that can be harmful, nevermind how difficult it may be to spread it to other people.

Hmm where should I put it...

to decide what's a significantly harmful disease

Oh, okay. "Contagious disease that has significantly harmful long-term effects" it is.

If you're dodging that with this, then you at least need to let the nations decide what counts as compelling practical purpose.

The compelling practical purpose would be that other people would get infected if the people with the disease aren't quarantined. Other people's lives are in danger.

OOC: To put this into perspective, imagine what would happen in real life if your RL nation's government set aside some concentration camps quarantine facilities in most urban areas and made everyone with any sort of disease that can have some sort of harmful effects (from HIV to hemorraghic fevers to influenza to chicken pox to strep throat to syphilis) to go in there, presumably until they got better or died. Except those whose disease can't be cured, would never be allowed to leave.

Most of those people would still be living a normal life in the quarantines, except for the ones where the disease has gotten serious, in which case it would make sense for them to be under immediate health supervision. It's not going to look like oppression if the government shows them a picture of an extremely ill person and says "we're making quarantines so this doesn't happen to you too" to all the non-infected individuals. In many cases of incurable contagious diseases, there are vaccines or other treatments that can prevent the spread of that disease, and thus stop it from being contagious. Even for the incurable unpreventable ones, it's not like infected individuals could be trapped in a quarantine for the rest of their life even though they feel fine; eventually the significantly harmful long-term effects will set in and they'll be glad they're in a health facility(unless it's a mental disease, but then they won't really be themselves anymore).

Do you think that would go over well? Or would there be a huge uproar about parents having to send their sick toddlers away from home just because the disease their child has, can - if untreated (your proposal says nothing about treatability) - have harmful long-term effects.

The proposal doesn't ban parents from visiting their infected children, as long as they take the appropriate health precautions. The quarantine could be just like home for that poor toddler, until the disease gets serious. Besides, in most cases it wouldn't be a bunch of soldiers forcing people into quarantines; it would be an ambulance. People with nasty diseases don't tend to have very pleasant experiences anyway, so they might as well have their unpleasant experience away from unprotected citizens.

You still have the "areas spreading twice infected individuals" thing in there, which should read something like "number of infected individuals doubling".

That's a common measure for determining if something is an epidemic; it's the same wording used in ERA.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Ara, you've gotta stop conflating quarantines with concentration camps. The two are totally different.