The Great Diggnation Beard Contest

We Need Your Help!

Thanks for your interest in helping us determine the results of the Diggnation Beard Contest. We need you to help by voting on the events that transpired over the course of the couple months.

Please read the posts below for the official rules that were written and provided by Kevin Rose along with the acceptance of the rules from his appointed witnesses. An additional post includes what happened and evidence submitted. You can see a discussion of the evidence after the credits of Diggnation Episode 332

Please be sure to vote (and/or leave comments) on our Facebook page!

The Rules

~~ (as originally submitted via email by Kevin Rose on September 1, 2011) ~~

“TO: Alex Albrecht, David Prager, Glenn McElhose

CC: Ryan Vance, Dan Huard

DATE: September 1, 2011

Gentlemen of stature and integrity,

Two months ago during a live (to tape) Diggnation podcast we agreed

that starting September 1st, 2011AD (The term “AD” Anno Domini is

Medieval Latin, translated as “In the year of (the/Our) Lord”) Kevin

Rose, Alex Albrecht, David Prager, and Glenn McElhose agreed a beard

growing competition was to begin, with an ending date of December

31st, 2011.

Rules of engagement:

— Men must grow beards.

— Beards must be made of said man hair.

— Trimming is forbidden except for said “scouts”.

— Neck trimming is AOK.

— Other man grooming (sack, scroat, circle shaft) is AOK.

IF any member of the group fails due to what is contractually knows as

“bitching out” or “being a bitch”, you are hear-by required to buy

every other member of the contract a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label

Scotch King George V: http://www.hudsonwinemarket.com/skuA564135.html.

This contact is a one-out all-out clause, meaning if one person breaks the

rules the others can opt-out without penalty. This binding agreement

was voted on yesterday with a vote of 3-0-1, the 1 outstanding vote

being Glenn as he was out of town.  Majority rules and the motion was

carried.

Please respond w/this email with “approved”.

cc: Vance/Huard as legal witnesses.

KR

— 

Kevin Rose

http://milkinc.com

http://about.me/kevinrose”

—-

Subsequently, all members approved. Ryan Vance specifically chimed in with: “Pursuant to the laws of California and the counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles, I hearby bear witness to this contract and declare it legal and binding.”

What Happened

By October 17, 2011, several events had transpired. At this point, David Prager sent an email to the participants of the contest along with the witnesses explaining what he had observed has having taken place along with the submission of several articles of evidence to support it (based on screen shots from email and “GroupMe” conversations.

Pasted below is that email, along with images of the evidence submitted.

“TO: Alex Albrecht, Kevin Rose, Glenn McElhose

CC: Ryan Vance, Dan Huard

DATE: October 17, 2011

To all ye gentleman of stature and integrity:

As some of you may have become aware within the past two weeks, the beard competition (hereto described in this message thread) has resulted in premature removal of significant amounts of facial hair of all participants (also as described in aforementioned message thread).

Pursuant to the clauses of failure so described as “bitching out” or “being a bitch”, I introduce a motion to provide the established legal and binding witnesses, Dan Huard and Ryan Vance, the power of adjudication and as arbitrators through a due process of discovery.

I therefore would like to hereby submit the following articles of evidence for the consideration of both those whom it may concern and those thusly empowered to adjudicate and “lay down the law to bitches”.

Exhibit A:

The key take-away from this piece of evidence (a conversation via the application for mobile computers call “GroupMe” (from this point further identified as GROUME) is the identification that trickery in turning someone into “a bitch” is fair game as participants in the contest identify that trickery is being attempted and boast their attempts at demonstrating an innate ability to identify it.

A1of3

A2of3

A3of3

Exhibit B:

This piece of evidence is an email thread between participants in the contest, arranged in top down chronological order. In it, you will identify a proposed modification to the rules, as well as a series of photographs.

B1of2

B2of2

Exhibit C:

This piece of evidence returns to GROUPME, and the dissemination of a new group of photographs. 

C1of3

C2of3

C3of3

Finally, I extend my gracious appreciation of the acute attention to details and the due process with which the binding arbitrators will honor to render and un-biased judgment.

Respectfully Yours,

David Prager”