NationStates

Drystar wrote:I still find clause 2 and 3.b problematic. You’ve a must statement for a member nation, but no penalty if they don’t. And 3.b has no repercussions for the agency if it does divulge the information. Is there other resolutions that tie in to those to offer recourse?

Clause 3.d then requires that the IHACC present evidence of non-compliance to the WACC for investigation. The IAO inGAR 440 would then assess the necessity and optimal size of, and impose, fines on the non-compliant nation. There would probably also be sanctions placed on the non-compliant nation by other member nations.
As for 3.b, WA committees are by default assumed to be infallible.

Maowi wrote:

Drystar wrote:I still find clause 2 and 3.b problematic. You’ve a must statement for a member nation, but no penalty if they don’t. And 3.b has no repercussions for the agency if it does divulge the information. Is there other resolutions that tie in to those to offer recourse?

Clause 3.d then requires that the IHACC present evidence of non-compliance to the WACC for investigation. The IAO inGAR 440 would then assess the necessity and optimal size of, and impose, fines on the non-compliant nation. There would probably also be sanctions placed on the non-compliant nation by other member nations.
As for 3.b, WA committees are by default assumed to be infallible.

But who punishes the agency if they do divulge the information, who holds them accountable, who docks their paycheck for screwing up? Is there an outside group that holds the agency accountable? If I’m sharing said info with the agency and then they leak that info to possible opposing forces, who punished the agency for violating its own rule.

Drystar wrote:

Maowi wrote:Clause 3.d then requires that the IHACC present evidence of non-compliance to the WACC for investigation. The IAO inGAR 440 would then assess the necessity and optimal size of, and impose, fines on the non-compliant nation. There would probably also be sanctions placed on the non-compliant nation by other member nations.
As for 3.b, WA committees are by default assumed to be infallible.

But who punishes the agency if they do divulge the information, who holds them accountable, who docks their paycheck for screwing up? Is there an outside group that holds the agency accountable? If I’m sharing said info with the agency and then they leak that info to possible opposing forces, who punished the agency for violating its own rule.

As far as I know, in any case, WA committees are staffed by 'goblins' who are just presumed, as a premise for the way the WA and the game work, to be neutral and have total integrity. So it's not possible for a WA committee not to carry out its duties or to be corrupt.

Maowi wrote:

Drystar wrote:
But who punishes the agency if they do divulge the information, who holds them accountable, who docks their paycheck for screwing up? Is there an outside group that holds the agency accountable? If I’m sharing said info with the agency and then they leak that info to possible opposing forces, who punished the agency for violating its own rule.

As far as I know, in any case, WA committees are staffed by 'goblins' who are just presumed, as a premise for the way the WA and the game work, to be neutral and have total integrity. So it's not possible for a WA committee not to carry out its duties or to be corrupt.

(OOC: They are usually called gnomes, but you are correct. GA gnomes, and therefore also GA committees, are perfectly efficient at carrying out any mandates. They cannot be corrupted, bribed, slowed, or in any other way have their function impaired.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Maowi wrote:As far as I know, in any case, WA committees are staffed by 'goblins' who are just presumed, as a premise for the way the WA and the game work, to be neutral and have total integrity. So it's not possible for a WA committee not to carry out its duties or to be corrupt.

(OOC: They are usually called gnomes, but you are correct. GA gnomes, and therefore also GA committees, are perfectly efficient at carrying out any mandates. They cannot be corrupted, bribed, slowed, or in any other way have their function impaired.)

Color me skeptical, but if that’s the way it is, so be it. The Dominion can live with these restrictions.

Kenmoria wrote:

Maowi wrote:As far as I know, in any case, WA committees are staffed by 'goblins' who are just presumed, as a premise for the way the WA and the game work, to be neutral and have total integrity. So it's not possible for a WA committee not to carry out its duties or to be corrupt.

(OOC: They are usually called gnomes, but you are correct. GA gnomes, and therefore also GA committees, are perfectly efficient at carrying out any mandates. They cannot be corrupted, bribed, slowed, or in any other way have their function impaired.)

OOC: Oops, yeah, confused the name.

Kenmoria wrote:

Maowi wrote:As far as I know, in any case, WA committees are staffed by 'goblins' who are just presumed, as a premise for the way the WA and the game work, to be neutral and have total integrity. So it's not possible for a WA committee not to carry out its duties or to be corrupt.

(OOC: They are usually called gnomes, but you are correct. GA gnomes, and therefore also GA committees, are perfectly efficient at carrying out any mandates. They cannot be corrupted, bribed, slowed, or in any other way have their function impaired.)

Bah at that point we may as well take our plenary power and (Harbinger voice) assume direct control.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: They are usually called gnomes, but you are correct. GA gnomes, and therefore also GA committees, are perfectly efficient at carrying out any mandates. They cannot be corrupted, bribed, slowed, or in any other way have their function impaired.)

Bah at that point we may as well take our plenary power and (Harbinger voice) assume direct control.

OOC: You yourself basically did let them do that.

But a general addition to what Kenmoria said: the gnomes are "infallible" only based on the information they receive. If new evidence comes to light or - to use court terms - a new witness comes forward with more information, or new scientific research is conducted, or any such case, then obviously the gnomes previous decision can be considered to be wrong, but only in light of information acquired since that decision was made.

OOC:
goes round obnoxiously ringing bell
LAST CALL
SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE
I want to submit this a week tomorrow _{subject to terms and conditions e.g. people realising I'm accidentally trying to force-legalise murder or something} so if you stay silent now and then this fails at vote IT'S YOUR FAULT. Also titles. I'm so bad at titles. I don't know if this one's ok.

4. Member nations’ military forces may not:
use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.

I have a few concerns about this provision, which I think really is the heart and soul of this act.

First, from a logistical point of view, how does a military know whether a trooper is "travelling directly to" a medical facility. It would seem that many roads which appear to be leading to a medical facility might also lead someplace else. Obvious problems arise with requiring military personnel, in the heat of a tactical operation, to hold their fire because a trooper is driving down a road that leads to a hospital, a bar, and a missile launch facility - and it is not yet clear which of the three the trooper intends to enter. Put differently, its not reasonable to require soldiers to delay firing at a target until it's clear the is not traveling to a hospital, as opposed to some other place, and it's not clear to me logistically how you could reasonably expect a soldier to know for certain (at least in some circumstances) that his adversary is going to seek treatment and not going for reinforcements.

Also, what is the point of offering protection when traveling "from a medical facility"? The positive effects of such a provision are dubious enough, but it also creates a very obvious problem: once a trooper enters a medical facility as a patient they cannot be targeted upon leaving, even if they appear to be in good health notwithstanding their condition and are headed back to the battle front, or toward a doomsday weapon, etc.

I do have comments on some of the other provisions but I'll wait for a response on these before getting into that.

OOC:

Losthaven wrote:

4. Member nations’ military forces may not:
use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.

I have a few concerns about this provision, which I think really is the heart and soul of this act.

First, from a logistical point of view, how does a military know whether a trooper is "travelling directly to" a medical facility. It would seem that many roads which appear to be leading to a medical facility might also lead someplace else. Obvious problems arise with requiring military personnel, in the heat of a tactical operation, to hold their fire because a trooper is driving down a road that leads to a hospital, a bar, and a missile launch facility - and it is not yet clear which of the three the trooper intends to enter. Put differently, its not reasonable to require soldiers to delay firing at a target until it's clear the is not traveling to a hospital, as opposed to some other place, and it's not clear to me logistically how you could reasonably expect a soldier to know for certain (at least in some circumstances) that his adversary is going to seek treatment and not going for reinforcements.

I am aware of the problem (and would be very happy to receive suggestions for solutions!) The only solution I could really find was requiring patients and non-combatant medical personnel to 'bearing clear identifying symbols' to indicate that they are subject to protection (false use of such clearly identifting symbols by combatants would be penalised under GAR 334 but I can add a clause forbidding non-combatants from abusing these protections). The problem with protecting only those actually inside the medical facility is that a military could easily surround a medical facility, basically rendering this proposal useless.

Also, what is the point of offering protection when traveling "from a medical facility"? The positive effects of such a provision are dubious enough, but it also creates a very obvious problem: once a trooper enters a medical facility as a patient they cannot be targeted upon leaving, even if they appear to be in good health notwithstanding their condition and are headed back to the battle front, or toward a doomsday weapon, etc.

See above - I'd be very willing to listen to any suggestions you may have.

OOC:
Wartime Medical Service Damage Prevention
Preventing Damage of Healthcare Services in War
Healthcare Service Protection Accord
Convention on Wartime Medical Service Protection
Ban on Destruction of Medical Services during War
Ban on Military Destruction of Medical Services
Protecting Healthcare Services in War

“In clause 4, ‘may not’ is ambiguous compared to ‘must not’, as ‘may’ can express possibility.”

Maowi wrote:OOC: The problem with protecting only those actually inside the medical facility is that a military could easily surround a medical facility, basically rendering this proposal useless.

OOC: So how far do you want the moat to be dug, then? Because why should hospitals be especially safe from being taken over when the rest of the area is? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the army that's taking over the area to also protect the hospital and its patients and workers? Because frontline hospitals can end up on the enemy's side of the line so fast that there's no time to pack up and leave. And staff might be at least partially unwilling to leave anyway, if it meant leaving some patients behind.

I thought this proposal was meant to make sure that military hospitals don't get targeted for artillery fire, and not create safe havens the enemy can't touch.

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 4, ‘may not’ is ambiguous compared to ‘must not’, as ‘may’ can express possibility.”

'To me, they convey the same meaning but since I'm not particularly attached to the current wording I'll make sure to change that.'

OOC: Edit - oops, forgot to include this reply

Araraukar wrote:

Maowi wrote:OOC: The problem with protecting only those actually inside the medical facility is that a military could easily surround a medical facility, basically rendering this proposal useless.

OOC: So how far do you want the moat to be dug, then? Because why should hospitals be especially safe from being taken over when the rest of the area is? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the army that's taking over the area to also protect the hospital and its patients and workers? Because frontline hospitals can end up on the enemy's side of the line so fast that there's no time to pack up and leave. And staff might be at least partially unwilling to leave anyway, if it meant leaving some patients behind.

I thought this proposal was meant to make sure that military hospitals don't get targeted for artillery fire, and not create safe havens the enemy can't touch.

Seeing as the proposal text doesn't specify that the medical facilities under protection must be out of enemy control, it seems to me that should hostile military forces take over an area containing a medical facility, they would be obliged to refrain from violence against the patients and medical personnel and to protect the facility. I hope I'm not misunderstanding your point?

Maowi wrote:OOC: Seeing as the proposal text doesn't specify that the medical facilities under protection must be out of enemy control, it seems to me that should hostile military forces take over an area containing a medical facility, they would be obliged to refrain from violence against the patients and medical personnel and to protect the facility. I hope I'm not misunderstanding your point?

OOC: No, but you're probably misunderstanding or mis-stating your own: "The problem with protecting only those actually inside the medical facility is that a military could easily surround a medical facility, basically rendering this proposal useless."

Why would military surrounding a medical facility render your proposal useless, if them surrounding the medical faclity is not an issue?

Araraukar wrote:

Maowi wrote:OOC: Seeing as the proposal text doesn't specify that the medical facilities under protection must be out of enemy control, it seems to me that should hostile military forces take over an area containing a medical facility, they would be obliged to refrain from violence against the patients and medical personnel and to protect the facility. I hope I'm not misunderstanding your point?

OOC: No, but you're probably misunderstanding or mis-stating your own: "The problem with protecting only those actually inside the medical facility is that a military could easily surround a medical facility, basically rendering this proposal useless."

Why would military surrounding a medical facility render your proposal useless, if them surrounding the medical faclity is not an issue?

OOC: I see what you mean now. (Part of) the point of the proposal is to prevent military forces from blocking wounded patients from accessing humanitarian aid, which, were military forces able to surround medical facilities, would not be effected.

Maowi wrote:OOC: I see what you mean now. (Part of) the point of the proposal is to prevent military forces from blocking wounded patients from accessing humanitarian aid, which, were military forces able to surround medical facilities, would not be effected.

OOC: Yeah, but isn't there a resolution requiring you to provide POVs with medical treatment? Just let the military surrounding the medical facility take the approaching wounded enemy soldiers under their wing as POVs, and it would only make sense to use the nearest medical facility, which is the one they already have surrounded? Especially since the patients or medical staff initiating violence would wipe out their protections.

OOC: Agreed with Ara

Araraukar wrote:

Maowi wrote:OOC: I see what you mean now. (Part of) the point of the proposal is to prevent military forces from blocking wounded patients from accessing humanitarian aid, which, were military forces able to surround medical facilities, would not be effected.

OOC: Yeah, but isn't there a resolution requiring you to provide POVs with medical treatment? Just let the military surrounding the medical facility take the approaching wounded enemy soldiers under their wing as POVs, and it would only make sense to use the nearest medical facility, which is the one they already have surrounded? Especially since the patients or medical staff initiating violence would wipe out their protections.

OOC: I'm tired now so hopefully my brain is working but I think that would be permitted under the current draft as long as they 'take them under their wing' without using violence?

(OOC: Including BBCode, this measures at 4975 characters. Since NS measures line breaks weirdly, that could mean that this is over the character limit of 5000.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Including BBCode, this measures at 4975 characters. Since NS measures line breaks weirdly, that could mean that this is over the character limit of 5000.)

OOC: I tested it in the actual 'submit a proposal' page by putting it in and previewing it and it was fine. I don't know if that's an indicator of whether it would fit if I pressed 'submit' though?

Maowi wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Including BBCode, this measures at 4975 characters. Since NS measures line breaks weirdly, that could mean that this is over the character limit of 5000.)

OOC: I tested it in the actual 'submit a proposal' page by putting it in and previewing it and it was fine. I don't know if that's an indicator of whether it would fit if I pressed 'submit' though?

(OOC I just tested it with something of over ten thousand characters, and the preview page doesn’t seem to care about the character limit.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Maowi wrote:OOC: I tested it in the actual 'submit a proposal' page by putting it in and previewing it and it was fine. I don't know if that's an indicator of whether it would fit if I pressed 'submit' though?

(OOC I just tested it with something of over ten thousand characters, and the preview page doesn’t seem to care about the character limit.)

OOC: Ah, ok, thanks for letting me know. I'll have to try and cut down a bit then.

Maowi wrote:OOC: I'm tired now so hopefully my brain is working but I think that would be permitted under the current draft as long as they 'take them under their wing' without using violence?

OOC: Yeah, but your arguments made in the thread don't quite match the arguments made in the proposal. You keep saying protecting people going to and fro at the medical center is one of the aims of the proposal. Why? Why does that matter in the least if all you need to do to get medical attention, if you're a wounded soldier and the enemy is between you and the medical center, is to surrender and be taken as POV?

And yes I'm aware that wounded soldiers rarely do that unless they're, like, dying, which is kinda the point.

Active war zones are rarely as organized as either side would like, especially when there is an offensive (meaning, the frontline may be shifting rapidly) going on. Not bombing a military hospital that's only trying to keep wounded soldiers alive? Great idea! Not shooting wounded soldiers only trying to get medical attention? Great idea! Requiring mind-reading technology for a group of armed soldiers coming across a group of armed enemy soldiers to know they're actually trying to get a wounded teammate to the medical help, rather than trying to sneak around for a surprise attack from behind? Not a good idea.

So basically clause 4 would need the addition of "unarmed" to the bits how to make sure you're not targeting a medical help seekers, but I know that's likely considered an unreasonable request in an active warzone. Basically, how do you tell an active soldier and noncombatant apart, if they're both wearing the same kit and carrying the same weapons?

As for reducing length, you use helluva lot of unnecessary repetition that you can cut easily.

Case in point, clause 4:

4. Member nations’ military forces may not:

a. use violence against non-civilian patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
b. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
c. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.

Rewritten:

4. Member nations’ military forces may not:

a. use violence against non-civilian non-combatant medical personnel or patients inside or travelling directly to or from a medical facility and bearing clear identifying symbols as such.
b. attempt to access or change medical facilities' data on patients or non-combatant medical personnel without authorisation from the medical facility's administrator.

Also, I know I gripe about committees, but this is a different kind of gripe: the ban to bomb medical centers shouldn't be a mere guideline in something the committee does, nor should you use that committee to give permissions for artillery fire/bombing runs.