To parallel the situation in the outside world, the term "precedent" may be applicable. There are frequent complaints in the news that judges and the courts are making policy on a wide variety of subjects. One needs to remember that legislators tend to view issues from a more theoretical and general point of view, while the judiciary must deal with the real cases in front of them. It can take a long time for the politicians and rule makers to catch up with reality. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong in having judicial precedents applied temporarily until the rule makers can find time to deal with the problem.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
It is not our job, just an effect of deciding cases in a reasonable way. There is no way we can decide a case that does not "change" policy in that it points to what can be expected when a matter comes up again. Phrasing the decision in terms of all administrators when we only have 3 before us is simply to make explicit what would otherwise be implicit. This way because all the hullabaloo which I invited by bringing the matter to the mailing list many have participated in discussing the matter who otherwise would not have and we have all thought about the scope of arbitration decisions.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's responsibility to create policy. And that is what they're doing. Even if I got everything I wanted, I would still object. But let me also say that I disagree with this option, because it's given Guanaco the ability to suddenly go wild and retroactively unblock EVERY SINGLE PERSON from the past whose reason for blocking doesn't match these unapproved criteria.
RickK