On 6/15/2019 8:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > - I really like the idea of obiter dicta, there might be a few good ways > to implement that.
Thinking about this a bit more, our system really requires individual judges to set broad precedents - sticking to the narrow would really bog down the game: - The appeals system (Moots) contributes no text to precedents. So if someone has to take several conflicting narrow precedents and make a broad precedent, that still has to be an individual judge. - Realizing this, there's no reason that an individual judge shouldn't generalize/set broad precedents in the first place (as long as they're not wholly incidental to the CFJ statement). - Also, since this is a game not real life, and judicial bandwidth is limited, there's no reason to go through the "set several narrow precedents before generalizing" stages - people will want to "just get on with the subgame as we can all tell was intended" instead of waiting for longer processes. - This is greatly abetted by the Agoran style of pursuing every loophole against the more common-sense approaches in a real court of law. If someone's going to say "yes that common-sense ruling makes sense but because of this tiny tiny grammar quirk I'm going to try a slightly different version of the scam", then it's better for the individual judge to set a broader "no scams of this type" judgement from the outset.
