Talk:383
From Nomicapolis
(move to vote; voting for) |
(→For) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 18:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | # [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 18:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | # [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | ||
Revision as of 01:02, 28 April 2007
Proposed by: Wooble 10:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Since there are no more Scorekeeper elections, it makes little sense to have a rule that states what happens if the winner of the Judge election also wins the Scorekeeper election. I was going to propose amending for clarity, but since the current Judge was opposed to this limitation in the first place and at the moment if a Scorekeeper was elected judge and the other players were unhappy with that they could strip him of Scorekeeper status with the same vote totals it would take to amend this rule, I'm just proposing repeal. Unless Tucana25 has changed his opinion on whether it matters if one person holds both offices, I see no chance of this proposal failing, so I suggest that debate run through 5:00 PM today. Wooble 10:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Debate
Bring it...--Tucana25 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on.
For
Against
Abstain
