(Failed) Scar_Face civitates (Patron: Jesus The Inane)

**Seleukos** · April 04, 2006, 06:38 PM

Scar_Face

Scar_Face

"I love, twc because of its intellectual debates. It is likely the most mature forum I have ever had the personal honour to be a part of. I think I have earned the honour to join the ranks of the Civitates, I have tried to post quality material, and the very fact that a Patrician has seeked me out, is a testament to this. He has already made it to the ranks of the Civitates, and is well respected one, and belives I am worthy. What more is there to say?"

Jesus The Inane
As for my part, I think Scar_Face is a good member, who contributes to most discussion, doesn't write that many one liners, and is well-known. I think he deserves to be a Civitate and that he won't dissapoint us. He is young, so there is much potential in him becoming and even better and more knowledable member.

**John I Tzimisces** · April 04, 2006, 07:02 PM

No, doesn't contribute positively to the forum, in my opinion.

**Wild Bill Kelso** · April 04, 2006, 07:13 PM

a big NO

**Valus** · April 04, 2006, 11:32 PM

A definite no!

**Seleukos** · April 05, 2006, 12:05 AM

Voted no.

**Obi Wan Asterix** · April 05, 2006, 04:13 AM

Do these people actually believe that mods will vote yes for them?

**Søren** · April 05, 2006, 04:27 AM

In time, maybe.

But now; no way.

**imb39** · April 05, 2006, 04:49 AM

He needs to show that he has reformed much more than he has. More time is required. Besides, he dosn't post that well, imo. Jesus does surprise at times, doesn't he.

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · April 05, 2006, 05:05 AM

nope, in time maybe......

**Justinian** · April 05, 2006, 07:14 AM

Let's all be constructive please, once the vote fails he deserves to know why (no one ever told me).

I can't in good conscience vote yes, because Scar_Face does not positively contribute to the forums. His good contributions have not outweighed his many warnings. My vote may turn to a yes in a few months if he focuses on posting politely and constructively.