BattleMaster > Magistrates Case Archive
Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger
Anaris:
So do it like the US Supreme Court: have the plurality be the official verdict, and have the rest who vote the same way but for different reasons write a "concurring opinion" that gets posted at the same time.
Geronus:
--- Quote from: Anaris on August 03, 2013, 08:01:54 PM ---So do it like the US Supreme Court: have the plurality be the official verdict, and have the rest who vote the same way but for different reasons write a "concurring opinion" that gets posted at the same time.
--- End quote ---
That would work, but only if other people are willing to write up opinions :(
I apologize to all for how long this case has taken to settle. A combination of the fact that I have been busy and a lack of consensus about the verdict has made it difficult to wrap this up. Really, most of the problem is that I am the only one writing verdicts these days since Vellos got busy IRL and Fury quit, and I only have so much time.
I will write this verdict and the other outstanding one tomorrow, and then we'll be clear of cases... For now.
Indirik:
I think it's a horrible idea. We need more clear decisions and precedents, not more wishy-washy weaseling. If the Magistrates disagree, then they need to hash it out in private, and post a single unified decision. The *last* thing we need is to set up some kind of minority, or dissenting opinion that contradicts or disagrees with the verdict, and allows those involved some way to consider even a losing position to be the correct one. We don't even need some kind of alternate interpretation of why the decision was correct, but the reasoning wrong. That's just more weaseling and rationalization.
Come to a decision, write the verdict, and be done with it.
Geronus:
--- Quote from: Indirik on August 04, 2013, 05:28:44 PM ---I think it's a horrible idea. We need more clear decisions and precedents, not more wishy-washy weaseling. If the Magistrates disagree, then they need to hash it out in private, and post a single unified decision. The *last* thing we need is to set up some kind of minority, or dissenting opinion that contradicts or disagrees with the verdict, and allows those involved some way to consider even a losing position to be the correct one. We don't even need some kind of alternate interpretation of why the decision was correct, but the reasoning wrong. That's just more weaseling and rationalization.
Come to a decision, write the verdict, and be done with it.
--- End quote ---
You're going to get a verdict, but since I'm the one who will write it, it's going to be largely my opinion. It will be posted for the other Magistrates to review before it winds up here, so if there's any major disagreement it will come out then and the verdict can be modified before it's finalized, but in all honesty it will probably reflect my views more than anyone else's. I doubt the other Magistrates are going to have lengthy objections for me to take into account.
Vellos:
We've discussed and rejected "concurring opinions" before. They've happened informally a few times but we've generally felt they confuse (dissents as well) more than they help.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version