Judicial petitions
Moderator: Staff
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Judicial petitions
For those of you too lazy to read: see the bold text.
In addition, I am making a requirement that threads for judicial petitions are entitled as follows:
In addition, I am making a requirement that threads for judicial petitions are entitled as follows:
[JP] <name of petitioner> vs. <name of defendant>; <some identifying name for locality in which the action is being disputed>
VII. Judging
A. Where the outcome of a battle cannot be decided by mutual consent of the two parties involved, the judge may intervene. The Judge has the final say in all events.
B. When one parties requests a judgement, they must start a new thread, clearly titled with the matter to be judged and the two opposing commanders involved. They must then explain what they believe needs to be judged (whether this be how realistic an action is, or to protest losses etc), and provide a link to the offended post or posts.
C. Their opponent must be given a chance to respond, and discuss the matter outside of the war thread with the opposing party. Once this chance has been given, the Judge may deliver his judgement based on the arguments of the two parties, the points involved, and his knowledge of realistic military combat.
D. Judging may change the losses invoked by the 24 hour rule but ONLY where this is clearly unrealistic.
E. Common Law – that is, where rulings have previously been made on an issue – is assumed to be correct unless the Judge says otherwise. That is, precedent of rulings will be followed.
F. At the cessation of conflict all judgements will be collated to add to the body of Common Law for further conflicts, where this conflict is International in scope.
G. A person appointed to judge in a recwar may not participate in the fighting of the recwar they are appointed to.