Talk:385
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate: precedence and stare decisis) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
I'd make this proposal explicitly take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to ''stare decisis''. There's a reason that such a policy isn't actually part of American law but rather just a policy of the courts; it binds a judge to follow any precedents that are contrary to the actual wording of the rules. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | I'd make this proposal explicitly take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to ''stare decisis''. There's a reason that such a policy isn't actually part of American law but rather just a policy of the courts; it binds a judge to follow any precedents that are contrary to the actual wording of the rules. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :I agree with the idea about repealing the other rules at the same time, but a while back i tried to do that and it repealed the rule because [[356]] automatically takes that action...so if it looks like this has popular support i will add a proposal to be voted on at the same time. Regarding the stare decisis, I'm cool with that... --[[User:66.41.83.16|66.41.83.16]] 09:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 1 May 2007
Proposed by --Tucana25 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Debate shall end for this proposal by May 5, 2007 00:01 EST.
I've combined rules 321, 328, and 363 as well as provide continuation of a judge if no players vote in a months election...If anyone would like to change anything about the position of 'judge', please let me know and i'll consider its merit. --Tucana25 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Debate
I'd make this proposal explicitly take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to stare decisis. There's a reason that such a policy isn't actually part of American law but rather just a policy of the courts; it binds a judge to follow any precedents that are contrary to the actual wording of the rules. Wooble 09:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with the idea about repealing the other rules at the same time, but a while back i tried to do that and it repealed the rule because 356 automatically takes that action...so if it looks like this has popular support i will add a proposal to be voted on at the same time. Regarding the stare decisis, I'm cool with that... --66.41.83.16 09:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
