Talk:352

From Nomicapolis

(Difference between revisions)
(Against)
Line 28: Line 28:
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 18:11, 16 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 18:11, 16 December 2006 (EST)
-
# --[[User:83.221.136.33|83.221.136.33]] 08:47, 17 December 2006 (EST)
+
# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 08:48, 17 December 2006 (EST)
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
__NOEDITSECTION__
__NOEDITSECTION__

Revision as of 13:48, 17 December 2006


Contents

Proposer's summary and declarations

Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments

I don't think a point award should be awarded for being Judge. I think lessen the integrity of the Judge's position. The Judge should be there because they are deemed worthy to hold the position. I might be more inclined to reward a Judge based on a popular vote after he leaves office, but even then I'm not sure I want the Judge getting points. --Dayd 23:09, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --TomFoolery 08:47, 16 December 2006 (EST)

For

Add FOR vote

  1. --TomFoolery 08:47, 16 December 2006 (EST)


Against

Add AGAINST vote

  1. chuck 18:11, 16 December 2006 (EST)
  2. --Shivan 08:48, 17 December 2006 (EST)


Personal tools