Talk:352

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 16:37, 17 December 2006 (view source) Dayd (Talk | contribs) (→Against) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 14:03, 18 December 2006 (view source) Tucana25 (Talk | contribs) (→Against) Next diff →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 08:48, 17 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 08:48, 17 December 2006 (EST)
	# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:37, 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-->		#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

---

Revision as of 14:03, 18 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)

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)