This thread springs out of the ridiculousness of a debate currently going on between myself and Glucker over whether knives or baseball bats are more dangerous in a fight.

Though I see someone has posted in the thread where the debate rages, it is unlikely that post is Glucker conceding defeat. Nobody here ever does, even if it is obvious they have lost.

This example shows the necessity of having a sort of a Hockeybuzz tribunal to put a stop to and rule upon such debates. While Hockeybuzz has always been very adversarial, it has never had a system. Welcome to the new Hockeybuzz adversarial system.

THE CHARTER:

Scope: This Tribunal may rule upon any Hockeybuzz disagreement through the steps outlined in the "process" section. All decisions are final except in the case of appeals, which are outlined in the "appeals" section.

Process:

In the event that an argument or debate arises:

- Any participant (one who has taken a stance) in the debate may approach the Tribunal and request judgment.

OR

- The Tribunal may rule without request if the debate is exceedingly annoying, is disturbing the peace of hockeybuzz or consists of repetitious arguments. This form of intervention requires the agreement of the majority of a quorum of Judges (to be outlined later). In such an intervention, a Judge will be selected to inform the debators in the thread which the debate rages.

From then on, the procedure is identical.

- Participants in the debate will be invited to this thread to make final arguments (one post of 1000 words or less per debator). The participants will have 24 hours in which to do so, starting from the time when the matter is docketed in the Tribunal thread, otherwise the Tribunal may rule without them.

- A quorum of judges (or more) will be selected for each individual ruling, taking care to ensure that judges with a conflict of interest are excluded. For example, I could not rule on a Paul Gilbert vs the world debate due to my man-crush on Paul and my hatred of the world. Presiding judges will declare themselves present at the outset of the case.

- The judges reserve the right to call for expert opinions (two opinions allowed per judge per case). For example, in a debate about Lebanese food, one may be inclined to call upon Dr Dellio for an opinion. All opinions will be a matter of public record and will be written on this thread, otherwise they are not valid.

- Expert opinions must be obtained within 48 hours of the docketing of the case.

- The selected judges will then each be called upon to cast their vote for the winning debator within three days of the commencement of the case. A vote may be cast anytime after closing arguments (or the closing argument deadline) but it MUST be cast within three days of the commencement of the case.

- The debator with the most votes wins and will be recognized as the winner by the losing debator. The debate then ends FOREVER and should it arise again, the winner need only call upon the decision to shut it down.

- Should a judge or judges fail to perform their duty, a new judge or judges will be selected by the remaining judge or judges and the vote deadline will reset back to three days.

Code of conduct for the Judges:

- Judges are expected to be impartial and honest in their rulings. They may ask questions to elucidate upon closing statements and they may debate issues amongst one another. Above all, they are expected to enforce this thread's status as a Hockeybuzz authority. Judges may request a ruling from the Tribunal but they may not vote on their own cases.

Judges:

There will always be five judges. Should a judge resign, they must be replaced by a candidate whom all remaining judges agree upon. For a judge to be removed there must be consent of all other judges. To refuse service as a Hockeybuzz Judge is disgraceful conduct and will result in unpleasantness.

The initial Judges are as follows:

1. Crimsoninja. He is a fairly bright fellow who has good Hockeybuzz attendance and a wide knowledge base. He also is usually the author of or willing to participate in many zany schemes.

2. Asp. He is honest, direct and opinionated. He has both youth and experience and he hates the Habs.

3. Davies. She is wise like Yoda and frequently is considered an authority. The stern face of a corgi will remind everyone of law and order.

4. enigmatic. He is enigmatic.

5. Pikey. I need a hobby.

Quorum is three judges out of five. Should it be impossible to gather quorum due to conflicts of interest, temporary judges will be selected from this list of alternates (in no particular order):

watsonnostaw, kicksave, aightwebang, dellio, grapeape, jsr, glucker, stormey, Bynger, BINGO and the_cause2000.

Appeals:

Appeals will only be allowed if novel and important information is brought to the attention of the Tribunal. All judges from the original case must agree to reopen a debate at which point the procedure begins anew. Only one appeal per case per debator.

Amendments:

Amendments to this charter may only occur with the agreement of all five current judges.

Judges, remember our motto: "Homo E Rectus"

Please allow at least 24 hours before requesting a judgment so that all judges listed may read the charter and accept their responsibilities.

Brilliant.


First case:

90% of Hockeybuzz users VS Mapes.

90% of users believe Mapes is the most retarded poster on this site.
Mapes refuses to admit he is indeed the most retarded poster.


Pikey, take it from here....

It is an honour to serve on the tribunal....

It is an honour to serve on the tribunal....
- enigmatic

Excellent.

Read.
- Pikey

im the chosen one.

me and flyers time will have something to say about this. you can baleedat. take that to (frank)ing bank. tribunal my ass

me and flyers time will have something to say about this. you can baleedat. take that to (frank)ing bank. tribunal my ass
- soccerkid1on1

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.
- Pikey

you'll be sorry.

Excellent.
- Pikey

Do we get sweet cars, cash and hoes like they did in the Skulls ?

Do we get sweet cars, cash and hoes like they did in the Skulls ?
- enigmatic

No.

...

Maybe the hos someday.

you'll be sorry.
- soccerkid1on1

You are irrelevant.

You are irrelevant.
- Pikey

w.e loser

I can't stop laughing. This is awesome.

This sounds intense.

This sounds intense.
- aschuter82

Shoot, I should've put you on the alts list. I'll have to get the other judges to agree now.

Shoot, I should've put you on the alts list. I'll have to get the other judges to agree now.
- Pikey

He can go on the alt list if he agrees to wear this shirt

He can go on the alt list if he agrees to wear this shirt


- enigmatic

Pffff everybody already knows I (frank) on the first date.

He can go on the alt list if he agrees to wear this shirt


- enigmatic

this guy is on the list and im not? comical

OP was wayyy too long. Please summarize.

T.hanks

He can go on the alt list if he agrees to wear this shirt


- enigmatic

OP was wayyy too long. Please summarize.

T.hanks
- aightwebang17

If you have a debate going on with someone anywhere on hockeybuzz, please come here and request a judgment. Your name is on the alternate judges list so there may come a time when you will be expected to read the charter. If you do not you will be disgraced.

this guy is on the list and im not? comical
- soccerkid1on1

- aschuter82

not u

this guy is on the list and im not? comical
- soccerkid1on1

We needed one renegade.