Talk:328
From Nomicapolis
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) |
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (→Debate) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Good point, I have amended the proposal to reflect it. Thanks. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:02, 24 November 2006 (EST) | Good point, I have amended the proposal to reflect it. Thanks. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:02, 24 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | It has been 24 hours since the last debate comment, please vote. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:58, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 15:58, 27 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)
Good point, I have amended the proposal to reflect it. Thanks. --TomFoolery 11:02, 24 November 2006 (EST)
It has been 24 hours since the last debate comment, please vote. --TomFoolery 10:58, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
