Search results

Yeah, sorry, it's 3b on the NS site but I couldn't figure out how to make nested lists with letters here so I'm talking about 3.2. And yes, it is. I've tried to avoid placing WA member nations at a military disadvantage to non-member nations as far as possible but I still think patients and...

Thought on it and made an edit to 3b. which I think solves the problem.

I'm still a bit confused about the point you're trying to make. Are you disagreeing that the draft doesn't let people do what you described in the situation above??

I think the definition of a patient - a non-civilian suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals - wouldn't include someone with a papercut. That doesn't require the assistance of medical personnel. And anyway, there is only a ban on preventing a patient...

Could you expand on that? The only substantive change has been removing that added clause.

In the end I removed that clause, as explained on the NSGA thread: Submission in around 1 week if no major problem comes up, so last minute feedback would be very much appreciated :)

Updated with that change and an edit to clause 2.

Hmm ... or maybe it would be better to add a clause explicitly banning the deliberate injury of non-civilians on your own side in order to qualify them for protection. Perhaps a bit of an idealistic view of the situation, but it would cover all circumstances. And things like good-faith...

So, your point is that member nations would purposefully injure their non-civilians so that they qualify for protection? Perhaps I could add a requirement for them to be unable to partake in the fighting as a result of their ailment in order to qualify for protection?

Thanks for the feedback :P By the definition of "patient," the member nation wouldn't be able to declare any non-civilian as under care of medical personnel on a mere whim; they need to be "a non-civilian suffering from a medical ailment requiring the attention of medical professionals." So I...

I'd be very grateful for any feedback on this. Thank you in advance! NSGA forum thread is here.

I don't want to argue here or start a long debate - that's what the onsite forums are for - but I would like to correct some misreadings of the text. It might not change your minds, but I'd rather make sure you're actually voting on what you think you're voting on. Rehabilitation is only...