Talk:328

From Nomicapolis

(Difference between revisions)
(Debate)
(Debate)
Line 16: Line 16:
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)
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 will ammend the proposal to reflect it. Thanks. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:02, 24 November 2006 (EST)
<!--END DEBATE-->
<!--END DEBATE-->

Revision as of 16:02, 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

Add comments

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 will ammend the proposal to reflect it. Thanks. --TomFoolery 11:02, 24 November 2006 (EST)


Vote

For

Add FOR vote


Against

Add AGAINST vote

Personal tools