Talk:328
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| - | Clause 4 should disenfranchise the player who made the ruling in question, not the current judge. Or am I missing something? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:41, 24 November 2006 (EST) | + | Clause 4 should disenfranchise the player who made the ruling in question, not the current judge. Or am I missing something? That way, rulings could be challenged after the judge that made them leaves office, say, if the precedent becomes a problem. Also, the way this proposal stands, a judge who felt strongly about an unpopular ruling he just made could immediately resign, and then he would have his vote against it. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:41, 24 November 2006 (EST) |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 15:44, 24 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the Judge.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.
Debate
Clause 4 should disenfranchise the player who made the ruling in question, not the current judge. Or am I missing something? That way, rulings could be challenged after the judge that made them leaves office, say, if the precedent becomes a problem. Also, the way this proposal stands, a judge who felt strongly about an unpopular ruling he just made could immediately resign, and then he would have his vote against it. Applejuicefool 10:41, 24 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
