Talk:353
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) m (User talk:TomFoolery/My proposal workspace2 moved to Talk:353) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | |
| + | |||
| + | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | ||
| + | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| + | Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 15 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Debate == | ||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--BEGIN 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. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 23:13, 8 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Vote == | ||
| + | Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 08:48, 16 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I declare this proposal failed... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 18:57, 19 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === For === | ||
| + | <!--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:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:25, 18 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Against === | ||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:03, 18 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:31, 18 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | #<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 23:57, 19 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)
I declare this proposal failed... --Tucana25 18:57, 19 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --TomFoolery 08:48, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- --Shivan 07:25, 18 December 2006 (EST)
Against
