Lard Bazaar 3,799 Posted January 31, 2016 The fact that its not yet February and some DDP teams already have 50 odd points by being a bunch of low-life, cheating, smug, low-fruit picking, ambulance chasing, cunt-wad dicks who don't appreciate it is supposed to be a dead pool for famous folk. The maninblack needs to have a word with himself and ask if this is really in the spirit of the DDP. It may be the 20th anniversary, but the idea was sold out years ago by a bunch of desperados with no lives. And looking at the ones who are listed, or so unknown they don't yet have obits, theres more to fucking follow! PS. Ronald King is a valid pick though. are you just salty becuase you're not winning. Jesus its just a game get over it, come on. Looking at your profile I see you are old enough to have a kid but instead you whine, grow up. I don't mind not winning. But I do mind losing to the likes of the teams that have already gained an insurmountable lead by picking dying nobodies. What I mind even more is that there are more valid teams than mine who will do well, but again be bashed into mediocre placings due to the aforesaid. One last thing...salty? What the fuck is that? And as for your other comment, I'm Scottish: we have our kids from 12 up you prick. Find a 14 year old telling a 28 year old there not old enough to have a kid hilarious. You could literally be his dad, given your Scottish. Grandad, if you're from Wiltshire. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218 Posted January 31, 2016 The fact that its not yet February and some DDP teams already have 50 odd points by being a bunch of low-life, cheating, smug, low-fruit picking, ambulance chasing, cunt-wad dicks who don't appreciate it is supposed to be a dead pool for famous folk. The maninblack needs to have a word with himself and ask if this is really in the spirit of the DDP. It may be the 20th anniversary, but the idea was sold out years ago by a bunch of desperados with no lives. And looking at the ones who are listed, or so unknown they don't yet have obits, theres more to fucking follow! PS. Ronald King is a valid pick though. are you just salty becuase you're not winning. Jesus its just a game get over it, come on. Looking at your profile I see you are old enough to have a kid but instead you whine, grow up. I don't mind not winning. But I do mind losing to the likes of the teams that have already gained an insurmountable lead by picking dying nobodies. What I mind even more is that there are more valid teams than mine who will do well, but again be bashed into mediocre placings due to the aforesaid. One last thing...salty? What the fuck is that? And as for your other comment, I'm Scottish: we have our kids from 12 up you prick. Find a 14 year old telling a 28 year old there not old enough to have a kid hilarious. You could literally be his dad, given your Scottish. Grandad, if you're from Wiltshire. Great Grandad if you are from Essex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,586 Posted January 31, 2016 Do we need the DDP equivalent of the Financial Fair Play rules? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted January 31, 2016 Do we need the DDP equivalent of the Financial Fair Play rules? No. You need an equivalent DDP for the anything goes crowd. I'm sure my view of the DDP is more in line with how its founders envisaged it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted January 31, 2016 "Salty" What does that even mean? I don't get it. I'm old. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted January 31, 2016 The rules for DDP are pretty specific. The deceased has to be mentioned in one of several national British sources. If someone's figured out how to get points with famous-for-being-old or sick folks, then they haven't violated any rules. Tip your hat and congratulate them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted January 31, 2016 The rules for DDP are pretty specific. The deceased has to be mentioned in one of several national British sources. If someone's figured out how to get points with famous-for-being-old or sick folks, then they haven't violated any rules. Tip your hat and congratulate them. It is not about the rules. It is the principle of it! Two of the deaths which gained points have had their names coded so they don't turn up on search engines! What does this prove? It proves that even the organiser of the DDP knows things have gone too far, and that the rules need to be fixed to bring the game back to something which it used to be! Either that or he should uncode the names, and take the consequences of running a dead pool that accepts that sort of thing. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cat O'Falk 3,290 Posted February 1, 2016 Those periods that crop up every few months where you just lose all motivation to do anything and everything feels like you've just been asked to climb Everest with your hands tied behind your back and feet bandaged together. It's not that you don't want to anything it just all feels so difficult and you feel even worse because you know you're wasting the time you could be doing this stuff in trying to do it. I hate these periods, just so soul-destroying and crushing and utterly pointless. *bangs head against wall* Try every day. I'm bi-polar; you wouldn't like those apples. Count your blessings my friend. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youwanticewiththat 611 Posted February 1, 2016 When life gives you apples..make cider or a nice tarte Tatin. No wonder the chefs are topping themselves. Sorry to hear that Cat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted February 1, 2016 The rules for DDP are pretty specific. The deceased has to be mentioned in one of several national British sources. If someone's figured out how to get points with famous-for-being-old or sick folks, then they haven't violated any rules. Tip your hat and congratulate them. It is not about the rules. It is the principle of it! Two of the deaths which gained points have had their names coded so they don't turn up on search engines! What does this prove? It proves that even the organiser of the DDP knows things have gone too far, and that the rules need to be fixed to bring the game back to something which it used to be! Either that or he should uncode the names, and take the consequences of running a dead pool that accepts that sort of thing. I beg to differ. It is about the rules. If players are succeeding and it's against the spirit or principles of the game then the rules should be changed (as you say yourself). It makes more sense than complaining about the success of others which only comes off as whining. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,586 Posted February 1, 2016 The rules for DDP are pretty specific. The deceased has to be mentioned in one of several national British sources. If someone's figured out how to get points with famous-for-being-old or sick folks, then they haven't violated any rules. Tip your hat and congratulate them. It is not about the rules. It is the principle of it! Two of the deaths which gained points have had their names coded so they don't turn up on search engines! What does this prove? It proves that even the organiser of the DDP knows things have gone too far, and that the rules need to be fixed to bring the game back to something which it used to be! Either that or he should uncode the names, and take the consequences of running a dead pool that accepts that sort of thing. TMIB has tightened the rules but the current climate of 24 hour news and lazy journalism by social media means that these individually very tragic cases get propelled into a mawkish sense of national hand wringing. I do not think it is fair to suggest that TMIB takes the rap for someone else's unscrupulous picks. I know I am never going to win if these are the types of picks that are going to win it but the world changes and we must accept that or we end up like a mad old hermit railing at the dying of the light. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spade_Cooley 9,528 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor definitely got the swag of a guy who doesn't check his fantasy team after week 3 of the season. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,400 Posted February 1, 2016 I do not think it is fair to suggest that TMIB takes the rap for someone else's unscrupulous picks. I know I am never going to win if these are the types of picks that are going to win it but the world changes and we must accept that or we end up like a mad old hermit railing at the dying of the light. We can still beat those unscrupulous pickers, we (with the hilariously funny teams) just need to be smarter than them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor definitely got the swag of a guy who doesn't check his fantasy team after week 3 of the season. Cuts like a knife... Twat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DevonDeathTrip 2,358 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor, I'm sure you picked Josie Grove on the DDP once. Would you do the same thing again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted February 1, 2016 Your views are valid and have been noted, Windsor... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor, I'm sure you picked Josie Grove on the DDP once. Would you do the same thing again? No. Then again, even if I did, at least you would still have 19 fairly famous folk on my DDP. Which is more than can be said for the present shower of shite at the top of the leader board. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor, I'm sure you picked Josie Grove on the DDP once. Would you do the same thing again? No. Then again, even if I did, at least you would still have 19 fairly famous folk on my DDP. Which is more than can be said for the present shower of shite at the top of the leader board. Au contraire... I will admit though when filling in the picks for the Shameless team it was kinda dispiriting... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deathray 2,940 Posted February 1, 2016 Your views are valid and have been noted, Windsor... All you have to do is split the fucking competition up. It ain't fucking rocket science and until you do it the competition has no credibility. The theme teams are a waste of space and not at all competitive except the ones based around people already likely to die (Coffin Dodgers, Centenarians etc), the normal celebrity teams are fun frolics and then you've got the deathbed lists of people literally nobody except avid readers of tabloids and hospital frequenters has hard of that turn the whole thing into a shit game of "luck another fucking waste of space, cancer surviving hero or utterly unknown sports bastard from fucking college grade i found while I wanked myself off at two in the fucking morning over the bloody prospect of being fucking young points". You need to start splitting the fucking competition up, it's a fucking farce at the minute and is about as credible and viable a Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter comeback single featuring a cove of Little Girls. Get it fucking sorted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor, I'm sure you picked Josie Grove on the DDP once. Would you do the same thing again? No. Then again, even if I did, at least you would still have 19 fairly famous folk on my DDP. Which is more than can be said for the present shower of shite at the top of the leader board. Au contraire... I will admit though when filling in the picks for the Shameless team it was kinda dispiriting... Explain to me how that is comparable to the kind of hits/choices on the 'leading' team. At least 15 big names there. By big names I mean actually famous. People will know who they are. 3 have made their without just being ill. 2 were famous for being ill (depite one being well known with the God squad). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted February 1, 2016 It's true Windsor, times have definitely changed. It's certainly become a lot more ruthless in recent years. Picks like Grove were a relative rarity in 2007. 2007 was the first year of the present points system, which is now no longer "new". The previous system was a lot stingier in terms of points. I think it was 5 for a hit, a couple of bonuses here and there and reductions in terms of age and so on. Perhaps a revival of such a system is worth considering for the future. It might not remove the more tasteless picks but it may reduce their effectiveness in terms of points to the overall leaderboard. Points awarding for certain picks is probably the most practical way to approach this issue. If I start loading more rules and regulations as to what or what isn't a legitimate pick could became a quagmire which the DDP may not function properly from. The problem is practicalities. The main reason I've steered clear of a revamp of the points system is due to the complex coding (it might not actually be too complex, if I worked out the system, I suppose) when it gets generated into the table of points. I don't have the HTA application that used the old system, only the present one. So if I was to make a radical change to points, I have to be sure that it will produce the right results. The database (and indeed the site itself) is well overdue an upgrade... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deathray 2,940 Posted February 1, 2016 Windsor, I'm sure you picked Josie Grove on the DDP once. Would you do the same thing again? No. Then again, even if I did, at least you would still have 19 fairly famous folk on my DDP. Which is more than can be said for the present shower of shite at the top of the leader board. Au contraire... I will admit though when filling in the picks for the Shameless team it was kinda dispiriting... Explain to me how that is comparable to the kind of hits/choices on the 'leading' team. At least 15 big names there. By big names I mean actually famous. People will know who they are. 3 have made their without just being ill. 2 were famous for being ill (depite one being well known with the God squad). Jeez you really are defensive. He was backing you up muppet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted February 1, 2016 It's true Windsor, times have definitely changed. It's certainly become a lot more ruthless in recent years. Picks like Grove were a relative rarity in 2007. 2007 was the first year of the present points system, which is now no longer "new". The previous system was a lot stingier in terms of points. I think it was 5 for a hit, a couple of bonuses here and there and reductions in terms of age and so on. Perhaps a revival of such a system is worth considering for the future. It might not remove the more tasteless picks but it may reduce their effectiveness in terms of points to the overall leaderboard. Points awarding for certain picks is probably the most practical way to approach this issue. If I start loading more rules and regulations as to what or what isn't a legitimate pick could became a quagmire which the DDP may not function properly from. The problem is practicalities. The main reason I've steered clear of a revamp of the points system is due to the complex coding (it might not actually be too complex, if I worked out the system, I suppose) when it gets generated into the table of points. I don't have the HTA application that used the old system, only the present one. So if I was to make a radical change to points, I have to be sure that it will produce the right results. The database (and indeed the site itself) is well overdue an upgrade... Let me be clear. My criticism is not of you. People are just taking the piss for the sake of winning the competition. I think it would be advantageous to introduce a rule banning picking people who are famous simply for being ill. Until they are banned or penalised against, there will always be a temptation to pick them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spade_Cooley 9,528 Posted February 1, 2016 My team literally contains just one person who is "famous for being ill". Tell 'em why you mad, Windsor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
