I don't like it at first read, but you may provide examples of situations where such a procedure could be useful. In particular, just determining "who's right" doesn't help much. As for determining what punishments are plausible, isn't this better done by a committee specialized in the Constitution?Hey, why not? A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee or whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting a jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what punishment is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal, ever?