Talk:352
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(→Against) |
(→Against) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=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) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Revision as of 13:47, 17 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 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
- --TomFoolery 08:47, 16 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- chuck 18:11, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- --83.221.136.33 08:47, 17 December 2006 (EST)
