OOC: Corrections in
red. OOC and IC as marked.
Hulldom wrote:Emergency Broadcasting Standards
IC:
"For what the effect of the wording really has, this is likely a bad name for the proposal, given most people think of earmarking specific radio frequencies for specific activities and unifying radio equipment and such, with the words "broadcasting standards". Some people might even think those words refer to the content of the broadcasts rather than the method. Perhaps "Emergency Communication Standards" instead? Or rethinking just the word "standards"."Area of Effect Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety
OOC: Regulation is the category, one of its areas of effect is Safety.
Whereas it is prudent for residents of all states to have access to critical information before, during, and after emergencies,
Whereas the creation of international standards regarding the same was urged in GA #570
OOC: ...so? What is the problem you're trying to fix with this proposal? And if you refer directly to another resolution, write out its name.
Therefore:
OOC: Your sentence structure is missing something. You're basically going "because cats are mammals and owls are birds, we must cut down all forests". There's a bit missing from the middle of the reasoning for the actions. The preamble is meant to provide not just what is the problem but also why your proposal is needed to fix it.
The following definitions are used in this resolution: Defines for the purposes of this resolution,
OOC: Maybe just wording preference, but the replacement suggestion looks more professional (and is used in many resolutions), instead of something one might find in a scientific paper or a school essay.
"Emergency events" means as any event which necessitates a response an emergency response from the local or nation-wide authorities to protect life and property, including, but not limited to, extreme weather events, military attacks, and industrial accidents,
IC:
"Is this defintion even needed? It is basically the dictionary definition of the term, and doesn't have, in the context, any weird definitions that one might err on to use."OOC: Correction suggestions in red again, to make it more professional and to specify who needs to be reacting.
"Broadcasting" means as transmissions over radio waves and over telecommunications systems,
IC:
"Again, an unnecessary dictionary definition. Though in the case of a breakdown of broadcasting systems, such as might happen during one of the events mentioned in your examples, would, for example, using portable loudspeakers count?"All member states shall create emergency communication systems if such do not already exist, which shall be utilized to communicate with inform their residents regarding of all necessary information about ongoing emergency events.
IC:
"How is this exactly doing more than the resolution you mentioned? And given that any developed nation would by necessity already have something like this in place, are you trying to mandate another one be created or can nations use an already working system?"OOC: The red corrections are attempts to fix what she says in IC. I'm working on serious sleep deprivation right now so ask someone with firmer grasp of English to look it over.
As an example of using what already exists: last year in RL, the state authorities in Finland sent important info about the COVID stuff as text messages to all sim-cards in use in the nation. I even got it on my tablet device. Didn't even know it could receive text messages. I guess that uses radiowaves, but isn't normally thought of as "broadcasting", except in the less literal sense.
Member states shall utilize a variety of means to communicate with their citizens during an emergency event. These means shall be commensurate with the technology available in each member state.
IC:
"Shouldn't the tech level availability be mentioned back wtih the creation of the broadcasting system? And why must nations use "a variety of means", when you mandate the creation of a single system? Maybe "any available means" would cover both the variety and the technological availability issues. In an emergency radio towers can go silent, such as if toppled by a powerful earthquake, or intentional sabotage by terrorists, so the broadcasting system might not work in any case."If an emergency event threatens another member state or multiple states, the member state first affected must notify other member states of the event so they can communicate with their citizens regarding the emergency.
IC:
"Aside from something obvious like a major volcanic eruption, where do you draw the line? Is smoke haze in the upper atmosphere from seriously out of control forest fires a "threat"? It might cool the temperatures by one or two degrees, but normal high altitude clouds have the same effect and they are not considered a hazard either. And if a tropical cyclone is approaching from the ocean, and there are several small member nations on the same oceanic shoreline, which of them must warn the others? Or should it be expected that they are not idiots and are in fact monitoring the weather themselves, especially when the weather services such as satellite data may be a third party service and possibly owned and maintained by a non-member nation. Perhaps you should instead make member nations responsible for acquiring the information necessary to keep their citizens safe, and check what, if anything, the various existing resolutions say about sharing such data already. Fairly sure there is something on meteorology out there already."Member states shall prioritize the broadcasting of localized messaging in emergency events. However, member states may default to broadcasting national messaging if there is no available method for broadcasting at local or regional levels or if communication at those levels is unnecessary.
OOC: This says "decide yourself" in too many words. Basically nothing of value is added to the proposal by including this. The decision about prioritazion is left to the member states automatically unless you try to regulate it.
Member states are encouraged to undertake regular testing of all systems they use for communication during emergency events and to ensure that the equipment used, if any special equipment is used, is in good repair.
OOC: Requiring this rather than just encouraging would likely be more helpful. And the wording is wonky, but I'm tired enough that English is very close to not making sense anymore, so I need to go take a nap. Sorry.
Now, what does your proposal actually do? Say that emergency broadcast system must be made? Nothing about the citizenry having a way to receive said broadcasts. Like, if not counting cellphones, how many people have portable battery-operated radios anymore? TV broadcasts and text messages are the modern world ways to reach people.
But does it do enough? If an existing resolution encourages something and this then mandates it, is that enough for an area of effect? They have a Strong effect on national stats, so their wording should at the very least reach Significant strength effect. Given most reasonably developed RL nations already have such systems in place, and the rest would not be able to have them because of issues with technological availability and vast distances/difficult terrain. So does this
do enough?