:::Often people assume support without further comment to be "per nom". You can also look at it that a supporter can be taken to be saying that the candidate has all the necessary requirements to becoming an adminship. Opposers are saying that some element(s) of that is lacking - the onus has generally been on them to say what exactly it is that a candidate lacks. Some of this no doubt flows from the idea that adminship should not be a big deal. Bare opposition still has some meaning - that the candidates lacks the confidence of the opposers, but it contributes nothing else to the discussion. Fuller support reasons can be more useful when closing though - especially if they directly tackle comments that have been made in opposition. Similarly users can express reluctance in supporting - self describing it as weak or recognising that opposers have raised valid points, which could also be taken into account where consensus is hard to determine.