View Topic

The reason I removed the Monarch is because if this passes the Monarch will hear appeals of judicial panel cases, and it doesn't make much sense for the Monarch to hear an appeal from a judicial panel headed by the Monarch.

I didn't have an issue with that, since in reality it makes sense.  You're essentially the Chief Judge for cases, so it makes little sense indeed to hear an appeal from a panel that you're the Chief Executor of. 

Hmm, OK, I can see that a broad definition could be used against people here, and as we are such a small and close knit community that we can't afford the luxary of eliminating everyone involved in a case from the judges panel...

Not that there is anything wrong with being close knit and friendly, it's why I like it here so much .

So in that case, I guess making the definition more specific is fine by me, while it would be nice to be broad here, I can see that it simply wouldn't work.

As such I agree that something simple like replacing "... who are not parties to the case..." with "...who are not either the defendant or plaintiff..." would work best.

It's currently the 13th, would anyone care to make a motion to extend debate, table, or bring this to a vote?

Motion to extend debate.

A motion to extend debate has been made.  Do we have a second?

No, I'm going to start drawing the line. I motion to vote.

A motion to vote has been made, and currently we have a motion to extend debate.  Do we have a second for either motion?

Very well, I withdraw my motion and instead second the motion to.vote.

Alright, the motion to vote has passed.  This will be brought to a vote momentarily.