Talk:352

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 17:32, 29 November 2006 (view source) TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (User talk:TomFoolery/My proposal workspace moved to Talk:341) ← Previous diff		Current revision as of 23:54, 19 December 2006 (view source) Tucana25 (Talk | contribs)
(10 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	#redirect [[Talk:341]]	+	<!--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&section=2 Add comments]
		+
		+	<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->
		+	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.  --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 23:09, 8 December 2006 (EST)
		+	<!--END DEBATE-->
		+
		+	== Vote ==
		+
		+	Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 08:47, 16 December 2006 (EST)
		+	I declare this proposal failed... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 18:54, 19 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	=== For ===
		+	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
		+	# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 08:47, 16 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&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
		+	# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 18:11, 16 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 08:48, 17 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:37, 17 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:03, 18 December 2006 (EST)
		+	#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
		+
		+	__NOEDITSECTION__

---

Current revision as of 23:54, 19 December 2006

Contents 1 Proposer's summary and declarations 2 Debate 3 Vote 3.1 For 3.2 Against

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) I declare this proposal failed... --Tucana25 18:54, 19 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)
3. --Dayd 11:37, 17 December 2006 (EST)
4. --Tucana25 09:03, 18 December 2006 (EST)