Talk:328
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(repeal info) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | This rule was repealed by [[387]]. | ||
| + | |||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
<!--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) |
| + | |||
| + | 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--> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 28: | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
| - | # | + | #--[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:58, 27 November 2006 (EST) |
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:43, 27 November 2006 (EST); (I wish you had used the definition instead of the term "stare decisis" in the rule, but it is a good rule anyway). | ||
| + | #--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 19:47, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 36: | ||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| - | # | + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:16, 27 November 2006 (EST) |
| + | # | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 15:44, 10 May 2007
This rule was repealed by 387.
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
- --TomFoolery 10:58, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 11:43, 27 November 2006 (EST); (I wish you had used the definition instead of the term "stare decisis" in the rule, but it is a good rule anyway).
- --Tucana25 19:47, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Dayd 21:16, 27 November 2006 (EST)
