Talk:385
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate: precedence and stare decisis) |
(passed) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | This proposal has passed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
<!--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take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to ''stare decisis''.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take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to ''stare decisis''.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+ | :I agree with the idea about repealing the other rules at the same time, but a while back i tried to do that and it repealed the rule because [[356]] automatically takes that action...so if it looks like this has popular support i will add a proposal to be voted on at the same time.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) (that was me...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| + | Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 10:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
| - | # | + | # [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 18:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT) |
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | # [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | ||
Current revision as of 15:33, 10 May 2007
This proposal has passed. Wooble 11:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
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) (that was me...--Tucana25 09:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT))
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. Wooble 10:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
For
Against
Abstain
