Talk:353
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (→For) |
(→For) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 08:48, 16 December 2006 (EST) | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 08:48, 16 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| - | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # --[[User:83.221.136.33|83.221.136.33]] 07:24, 18 December 2006 (EST) |
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
Revision as of 12:24, 18 December 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
I don't agree with this proposal based on the fact that if 1) the people still want the Judge in the position knowing full and well that the Judge just quit let them re-elect him...if he "idles" out then it's the electorate's fault and 2) again like 1 if the electorate expell a Judge and then decide that they want him back in so be it. --Dayd 23:13, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --TomFoolery 08:48, 16 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --TomFoolery 08:48, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- --83.221.136.33 07:24, 18 December 2006 (EST)
Against
