not even.

I think I did it a few times only usually the day after you wrongly accused me of downvoting you every day and even then it was usually a -1.

watch for one tomorrow.
- dt99999

see you at 12:01

- PhillySportsGuy

randomly eject schuter via tribunal thus stirring up some more hateful downvoting
- -davies-

It was by no means random.

It was by no means random.
- aschuter82

I will fight for u

I will fight for u
- BINGO!

Thanks bingo, you're the best

Thanks bingo, you're the best
- aschuter82

Don't get all (frank)in clingy on me now.

Don't get all (frank)in clingy on me now.
- BINGO!

Don't worry, I'm not Twiztedmike

Don't worry, I'm not Twiztedmike
- aschuter82

bingo's only okay anyway. far from the worst, but also far from the best.

It was by no means random.
- aschuter82

seemed pretty random to me

seemed pretty random to me
- -davies-

Don't worry, I'm not Twiztedmike
- aschuter82

well there goes my theory

bingo's only okay anyway. far from the worst, but also far from the best.
- kicksave856

well there goes my theory
- the_cause2000

you hvae the gayest theories

you hvae the gayest theories
- twiztedmike

Like my one about Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick?

Like my one about Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick?
- the_cause2000

Ooh I haven't heard this one... tell me!

The Tribunal has now reopened in order to rule on phillysportsguy's complaint in the 2016: The "Celebrities and Famous" Who Will Die in 2016 Game.

All parties involved are asked to submit evidence, complaints, and bribes at this time in order to form a fair judgement.

I vote in favor of PhillySportsGuy

I vote in favor of PhillySportsGuy
- Streit2ThePoint

as do i

I vote in favor of PhillySportsGuy
- Streit2ThePoint

Ty for being a noble and reasonable man

as do i
- kicksave856

Ty for being a noble and reasonable thing

I vote in favor of PhillySportsGuy
- Streit2ThePoint

You are neither a judge or an alternate per page 1.

Ty for being a noble and reasonable thing
- PhillySportsGuy

hey no problem

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"
- Pikey

For reference.

Please note that 2 of 5 full judges are now defunct, though we hold out hope. New judges may be selected in the future.

For reference.

Please note that 2 of 5 full judges are now defunct, though we hold out hope. New judges may be selected in the future.
- BINGO!

or hope that the few remaining will also be deceased.

For reference.

Please note that 2 of 5 full judges are now defunct, though we hold out hope. New judges may be selected in the future.
- BINGO!

2 out of 3 or should someone appoint 2 new judges

i vote against psg in this matter as i am a stickler for spelling