Derby Dead Pool 2008

[Octopus of Odstock 2,200]

Hello,

As young Rude Kid has posted on the 2007 thread, I have been chosen, and duly accepted, to run the Derby Dead Pool next year. I'd like to clarify a few things for next year already & also run a debate over some small rule changes for next year, so that by the time the entry opening date comes around, everyone is clear of what the rules will be.

 

Firstly, thanks for the support so far. The Derby Dead Pool will remain under the same name. The Odstock Dead Pool has a ring to it, but there's no need for a name change & being linked to Derby ahs never done the site any harm... yet.

 

The competition will remain free - no admin charges, but any voluntary contributions will always be welcome. Likewise, there will be no cash prize - the competition & the award is for deadpooling greatness, not personal enrichment, and so it shall remain.

 

I can also confirm that the rule over no animals, fictional people, already deceased people etc. will remain.

 

I don't really want to make sweeping changes, as the DDP must be doing something right, but there are a few things I would like to change, and a few issues on which a number of people are divided - I can't please everyone of course, but I can at least take on board people's wishes & incorporate them where I can.

 

So, your feedback on the following will be much appreciated & will help me decide on what changes need to be made for the 2008 (and subsequent years) competition:

• Executions
  
• Famous for being Famous
  
• Age Limits
  
• Amount of subs
  
• Team Entry Limits
  
• Obituary Requirements
  
• Unique Picks
  
• Wallpaper
  
• Scoring System
  

Executions

Ultimately, I don't really want to run a restricted death pool, but I do know that many players feel that choosing someone due to be executed is a bit, shall we say, against the spirit of the game, if not against the rules, per se.

I am open about potential executionees, but if there is a big tidal wave of opposition to allow soon-to-be executionees on the DDP, then I have two options - one to ban them altogether, another to reduce their points score by half. I'd appreciate feedback on this issue particulary.

 

Famous for being Famous

I can see what people mean when the likes of say, Dorothy Webb or that old fellow that killed all those people in his car are picked. But as HCW posted on the 2007 rules, make the most of the openess & the rules. Personally, I'm happy to allow anyone to be picked & not change/limit the rules, as otherwise it'll be like the dull & frustrating Rotten Dead Pool. But am I the only one who feels this way?

 

Age Limits

If you asked me currently, what the lowest age limit will be, I will say sixteen still. No way is that being reduced, so, sorry MPFC, no 8 or 9 year olds with cancer. But, again, if there is a big sea change that 16 should become 18, I will consider upping the age limit. Again, your opinion on this one will be very important.

 

Amount of Substitutes

I would like to make it 3, as a number of us have many good candidates in the lists, only to annoy us by dying in the last weeks of the year. Anyone object to having 20 names & 3 subs, rather than just 1?

 

Team Entry Limits

I am aware that I will be taking on a behemoth of a Dead Pool. But that's fine. I like the theme teams, and hope they continue. I also will be having no limits on the amount of teams - if it's 121, or 6, or 1,000 so be it. However, to narrow down the time taken, with processing entries & candidates I have pondered whether I should restrict the entry per person to just one team? This is one is more a thought, than a potential ruling, but I'd be interested on feedback with this one.

 

Obituary Requirements

RK has summed up my feeling with this one in the 2007 thread. The Derby Dead Pool will remain British. "We shall fight them on the beaches.... we shall fight them.." ahem.

But I do know the DDP has a large global following & I don't want to alienate them too much.

Also, both the AP feed & the Guardian newspaper have proved sticking points in the past, so this is my compromise idea:

All current obituary requirements remain the same EXCEPT:

The Guardian now has to be an obituary from their obituaries page & not simply an AP (or other news feed) on their site.

To balance this out, a full obituary from the New York Times will be accepted in its place.

Either that, or the rules remain as they are. I can confirm that CNN, despite its reputation, will not be accepted as, otherwise the DDP loses the thing that makes it unique - there should be a struggle for obits, not just wham bam thank you.

 

Unique Picks

The one rule I WOULD like to introduce, if I can, is 3 points for a unique pick hit & not just one. I feel those who research harder should get some recompense. Any thoughts/objections?

 

Wallpaper

Initially, it'll stay the same. But I have agreed terms with a highly regarded Technical & Aethsics expert, who will act as my advisor in a non-executive directorship. We might fiddle around once all the names are up in the early part of the year.

 

Scoring System

I think, generally, this years new scoring system has been a breath of fresh air & generally a success & will, more than likely, be retained for next year. I certainly don't want to make the scoring system more complex - I'd like it to be easy to understand for both organiser(!) and contestants. But again, feedback on this would always be good.

 

 

Non DL'rs will also get their say.

If you want to PM or e-mail me suggestions, that's fine, but for now I'll leave it open to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few other things - I will probably be accepting entries in the first week or so of December - that's to be confirmed shortly.

Secondly, I shall still be posting on DL, but maybe my postings will go down a little in January....

Thirdly, I will accept Tempus back if he wants to come back.

Fourthly, I will still enter the team I had in mind & if I win, then huzzah! But, I'll enter it early and therefore will not take advantage of any good, potential unique pick candidates in proposed teams.

 

Cheers,

OoO

[Banshees Scream 110]

Ultimately, I don't really want to run a restricted death pool, but I do know that many players feel that choosing someone due to be executed is a bit, shall we say, against the spirit of the game, if not against the rules, per se.

I am open about potential executionees, but if there is a big tidal wave of opposition to allow soon-to-be executionees on the DDP, then I have two options - one to ban them altogether, another to reduce their points score by half. I'd appreciate feedback on this issue particulary.

 

The word reduction comes to mind but the word exclusion is in mind. In numbers about half of my list could possibly be all candidates who are likely to be executed in 2008. The bottom line is something has to be done and if cutting the value of a predetermined death is the solution, it works for me. If you want my advice, banning all predetermined deaths will make your life much easier.

 

Famous for being Famous

I can see what people mean when the likes of say, Dorothy Webb or that old fellow that killed all those people in his car are picked. But as HCW posted on the 2007 rules, make the most of the openess & the rules. Personally, I'm happy to allow anyone to be picked & not change/limit the rules, as otherwise it'll be like the dull & frustrating Rotten Dead Pool. But am I the only one who feels this way?

 

I believe DDP is made for unique selections and that fame qualifications should mainly be determined by a Wikipedia entry. The rule of having local candidates (Criminals\Murders) should be judged on just the individual alone. Overall it's likely that the individuals selected from this local category will not drop dead, and if they do drop dead it will be because of a predetermined death.

 

Age Limits

If you asked me currently, what the lowest age limit will be, I will say sixteen still. No way is that being reduced, so, sorry MPFC, no 8 or 9 year olds with cancer. But, again, if there is a big sea change that 16 should become 18, I will consider upping the age limit. Again, your opinion on this one will be very important.

 

Eighteen years of age. If there is anything that will give DDP a negative, it's sixteen year old girls with cancer. Personally it's doubtful that anybody famous enough at that age would have cancer, but when the curtain drops it should be eighteen the legal age in a majority of countries. It's not only for the guilt of the purpose, but for the respect of this game.

 

Obituary Requirements

RK has summed up my feeling with this one in the 2007 thread. The Derby Dead Pool will remain British. "We shall fight them on the beaches.... we shall fight them.." ahem.

But I do know the DDP has a large global following & I don't want to alienate them too much.

Also, both the AP feed & the Guardian newspaper have proved sticking points in the past, so this is my compromise idea:

All current obituary requirements remain the same EXCEPT:

The Guardian now has to be an obituary from their obituaries page & not simply an AP (or other news feed) on their site.

To balance this out, a full obituary from the New York Times will be accepted in its place.

Either that, or the rules remain as they are. I can confirm that CNN, despite its reputation, will not be accepted as, otherwise the DDP loses the thing that makes it unique - there should be a struggle for obits, not just wham bam thank you.

 

I don't see the addition of CNN as being the grand theft of DDP's heritage\foundation. I just see CNN as a source for many famed individuals who won't be mentioned by the BBC because they didn't make political speeches in Brittan, they didn't make films in Brittan, they didn't tell jokes in Brittan and the list hits the floor. I see the constant defense of DDP and the efforts to keep it British. I see their defense in fear of it becoming American and to rationalize .. I can't help but recognize that the DDP is defended against myself at some extreme. The whole ordeal is being overlooked, it has nothing to do with the origination of DDP but it revolves around the obituary sources and most of all the evolution of DDP. The origination of DDP will never die, but the addition of other sources make the game itself more global. I believe DDP is the greatest game of death on the internet and the greatest of all. To make it everybody's game just makes it that much better.

Overall the New York Times is better then nothing.

 

Now everything is settled then. I bet money you will be checking out other candidates 'seriously 'how could you not?' But having to put up five hundred teams deserves two or three last minute picks (not to mention a round of applause). For f****n cryin out loud. If I were running DDP I would take two or three names. It's just when you make your opening presentation you want to sound honest, and honesty is reliability. I trust the future success of DDP and I trust the decisions made by myself and others on this matter. I hope everything follows through accordingly.

[Godot 149]

My thoughts are: No-one under 18, no executions, no world war one veterans, no oldest people, no Titanic survivors but Munchkins should be allowed. I agree with higher scores for unique picks. I would also give a bonus for any death that makes the front page of a newspaper to encourage famous picks.

[maryportfuncity 10,649]

The front page/ famous slant would - however - leave open additional points for talentless and trivial celebs much beloved of the tabloids. Gerry Halliwell, for instance.

 

Also the WW1 and Titanic lot have obviously got good genes or they wouldn't still be living. Harry Patch and Henry Allingham survived an entire year on my Old and in the Way theme team for the CPDP. Harry still has a girlfriend FFS!

 

That nine year old with Leukemia cited on another thread was more a wind up than a real suggestion. f*****g sick all round if you ask me. Her neighbours sound a bigger problem than her illness.

[Canadian Paul 97]

First of all, congratulations on your promotion OoO! I'm away for a few days and the whole damn system falls apart huh? As I did with RK & SB, who I wish a heartfelt retirement and thank them for the premiere job they did, I offer my services in finding pictures for next year's competition, especially since I now have a fair-sized archive on my computer thanks to the CPDP. Anyhow, on to the inquiries!

 

Executions

Ultimately, I don't really want to run a restricted death pool, but I do know that many players feel that choosing someone due to be executed is a bit, shall we say, against the spirit of the game, if not against the rules, per se.

I am open about potential executionees, but if there is a big tidal wave of opposition to allow soon-to-be executionees on the DDP, then I have two options - one to ban them altogether, another to reduce their points score by half. I'd appreciate feedback on this issue particulary.

I like the idea of somehow reducing the points, although maybe not as much as half. Maybe a ban on placing your joker on executions? Compromise is needed here and, as we've seen, execution is rarely a sure thing, so there is at least some risk in choosing someone on death row, so I don't know if it's fair to outright ban their selection.

 

Famous for being Famous

I can see what people mean when the likes of say, Dorothy Webb or that old fellow that killed all those people in his car are picked. But as HCW posted on the 2007 rules, make the most of the openess & the rules. Personally, I'm happy to allow anyone to be picked & not change/limit the rules, as otherwise it'll be like the dull & frustrating Rotten Dead Pool. But am I the only one who feels this way?

I'm not an overall fan of changing the rules regarding this - let the obituaries decide who gets an obit. Strangely enough, however, I did briefly muse the possibility of choosing that old fellow that killed all those people in his car, but I figured he wouldn't get the obit and I ran out of space on my WDP team.

 

Obituary Requirements

RK has summed up my feeling with this one in the 2007 thread. The Derby Dead Pool will remain British. "We shall fight them on the beaches.... we shall fight them.." ahem.

But I do know the DDP has a large global following & I don't want to alienate them too much.

Also, both the AP feed & the Guardian newspaper have proved sticking points in the past, so this is my compromise idea:

All current obituary requirements remain the same EXCEPT:

The Guardian now has to be an obituary from their obituaries page & not simply an AP (or other news feed) on their site.

To balance this out, a full obituary from the New York Times will be accepted in its place.

Either that, or the rules remain as they are. I can confirm that CNN, despite its reputation, will not be accepted as, otherwise the DDP loses the thing that makes it unique - there should be a struggle for obits, not just wham bam thank you.

That seems fair, since it would have meant points for the likes of Fred Saberhagen and John Woodruff. I still seems a bit de-brit-izing, but I like the idea if no one else minds.

 

That's all for now. Congrats again!

[Tuber Mirum 125]

In case there's anyone who hasn't read it yet, the subject of fame and famousness for being famous is handled very nicely in one of Stephen Fry's blessays.

 

The gist of the thing seems to be that it is more suck than blow.

 

 

On the other subjects.

Executions are easy meat and ought at least to be penalised.

I wasn't too keen on the age penalties introduced last year, but that's not the question. 16 is fine with me.

3 subs sounds like a good idea. Saves a bit of email traffic.

Definitely only one team per person, as far as it can be enforced.

Regarding obits, your suggestions sound reasonable. Perhaps an Australian national paper could be accepted too, for the sake of fairness.

Unique picks- yes.

Wallpaper- perhaps just stripping and varnishing the existing stuff will do the trick.

Scoring system- As above. Believe me I know the importance of having a scoring system that the organiser understands.

[maryportfuncity 10,649]

This is serious; I read a post by BS and find myself in agreement with some of it!!

 

Re qualifying obits: I definitely think keep the rules as they are, particularly that thing about a newspaper article reporting the death counting for points purposes, cos - frankly - that's where the skill and the scoring comes from because it rewards those more dilligent than the rest of us who have a nose for this kind of thing. The fact it covers all national UK newspapers is also good because it evens my dead Dorothy Webb (in the The Sun) for someone else's dead bishop (in the Times) and such inclusiveness is the bait for the tonnage of teams.

 

I'm with BS on at least extending to CNN for the sake of the global market. Given the BBC's fairly good worldwide coverage for the likes of dead Tamil's, SE Asian politicos etc, that should be enough and - frankly - starting to argue the toss about other sources would make a tough job impossible since we've gone from two bosses to one.

 

Good luck OoO.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Right, my fourpennworth etc...

 

Executions

The thing is with executions is that they're not guaranteed. Just because someone's on Death Row, doesn't necessarily mean they are going to cop it in the near future, particularly in America, where there is the complex appeal proceedure. So I have no problems with potential executees being on the list.

 

Famous for being Famous

Where do you get the uniques from if not from this? If there's an 'obit', you get points. The risk is whether they'd be any. It depends on what is regarded as famous and what is not. Dorothy Webb was the mother of Sir Cliff Richard and famous for nothing else and gets mentioned. John Smyth, who refereed the first World Championship Snooker final at the Crucible theatre, didn't. It's just the way it goes...

 

Age Limits

What would be considered the limit? 16 is young, but in the great scheme of things, so is 18. However the Josie Grove episode does raise the thorny issue of someone being famous simply because they are ill and a fuss has been made about it.

 

Amount of Substitutes

Have it like a World Cup squad - 23, 3 substitutes should be more than enough...

 

Team Entry Limits

One person One team I think. DDP is expanding at an exponential rate so the choice is to be theme or not. Perhaps there should be an incentive of an extra point for a theme team pick to encourage this, as long as the theme is tenable.

 

Obituary Requirements

Would the Guardian obits include the 'other lives' section? New York Times is a repituble instiution, as is the Washington Post, as a bone for our cousins across the Atlantic...

 

Unique Picks

I agree. 3 points.

 

Wallpaper

I want Anaglypta!

 

Scoring System

I would expand the Party Poopers threshold to cover New Year's Day, Easter Day and even Bank Holidays, maybe with one less point - 4.

 

Hope that's useful to you OoO!

 

 

[Banshees Scream 110]

After analyzing some of the main opinions here I've drawn up the essential conclusions and probable outcomes to the following questions. I feel this is fair.

 

Unique Picks - Three points. Unique is unique, it should not go unrecognized.

Amount of Substitutes - Three. If anybody needs a fourth substitute - guess what bitch! You sent your list too early!

 

Team Entry Limits - One team, one person. Anybody could create another E - Mail address but in the books this rule makes perfect sense.

 

Famous for being Famous - It all comes down to the qualified obituary. You can list your neighbor, you can list the mail man, you can list the Japanese man who collects tin cans and plastic bottles from your garbage ... hell you can list your mother... it all comes down to the obituary.

 

Age Limits - Eighteen. If you are under eighteen 'like TMIB' said it is likely that you are only famous for your illness. Second, listing anybody under eighteen years of age is just wrong. Hear it.

 

Obituary Requirements - BBC - New York Times - and personally I would like to see CNN as a source and MPFC said it better then I did. It looks like our organizer Triple O will refuse to allow CNN as a valid source, but at least the New York Times will make it's debut. It's good enough for me because it should cover all my candidates anyway.

 

Executions - The point of a predetermined death being excluded has made the fair argument of how 'not all'

inmates\Iraqi extremists are hung\executed by a firing squad when they are expected to be. For this reason I think it's rational to say all executions score-value should be minimized 50%. I could call that fair.

 

Wallpaper - I really don't care. From reading it looks like Rude Kid wanted the wall paper to stay old school so in the end it doesn't matter much to me.

 

So fair is fair? I could call these rules fair.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,200]

Thanks all for your feedback so far, and please continue to vent your spleen or air your thoughts - it's most useful.

 

A quick update & and also an inkling of where I'm at at the moment:-

 

Executions

This one is still open - there's some very good points about either a lack of obits, or indeed, a lack of death - I think if pushed for a decision right now - a reduction of points or, as CP said, a ban on placing a joker on an executionee is more likely than a complete ban. But that's before I put the question to a wider scale.

I think the one thing I am wary of is a repeat of the Barzan/Bandar problem if the "Al-Majid three" aren't executed by year's end. If they are killed, or reprieved, then it's a bit more of guesswork than assured points.

 

Famous for being Famous

Good points by everybody - I've decided there won't be any restrictions on the level of famousness - so relatives of famous people or obscure "In the news" type people like Ainscow - fine. No qualifying articles or likewise needed. Ultimately, they may not get an obit anyway. Godot, people picking WWI veterans are hampered anyway, either by a lack of obits, or a lack of points.

 

Age Limits

Again, still open. Still likely to stick to 16 at this time - again, this is probably going to go to the wider DDP audience.

 

Amount of subs

Because of restrictions beyond my control, this will have to stay at 1, I'm afraid. Ultimately, if more picks die, I'll e-mail the relevant parties. I think last year was a bit freakish anyway.

 

Team Entry Limits

I'm veering towards (and would like) one player - one team. But I do want to see Theme Teams - I think they provide a bit of colour into it. Hopefully we can still have both. TMIB, I think giving extra points for dead picks on theme teams starts to confuse me with scoring and there could be argument about what a "theme team" is, so I don't think that option is going to be taken up - but thanks for suggesting it, I hadn't considered that.

 

Obituary Requirements

The third one that will go to a wider audience. All of you have made good points. Personally, I think that the BBC in itself covers a huge amount of potential picks & the rest supplement the less populist but still famous (ie WW2 heroes, civil servants, politicians etc.), so the need for CNN is perhaps lessened, because of the BBC. I'm still ruminating on this one.

 

Unique Picks

I can confirm it will now be 3 points for a unique pick, instead of 1, after it was proved workable. So get unique-pick spotting now!

 

Scoring System

Good suggestions, TMIB, thanks again. But Bank Holidays are a bone of contention as Scotland, Ireland, and of course the USA, Canada, Australia etc all get different bank holidays off!! New Year's Day though... hmm.. maybe.

One thing I can confirm though, is the current scoring brackets & current bonuses (unatural deaths, double points for joker) will remain.

 

 

 

So I hope that clears at least three points up - further feedback on the other three is welcome & will continue & soon I'll confirm what, if any, rule changes will affect the 2008 (and onwards) DDP.

[Handrejka 1,904]

Congratulations and good luck. I like the idea that unique picks will rewarded but I think you're making a lot of work for yourself by upping the score as more people will try and find unique picks.

 

 

 

One question though. How are you going to implement the one team per person rule, are you just going to ask people to be honest, because that isn't going to happen?

[Banshees Scream 110]

I can honesty say that I will at least have three or four teams

 

 

 

jk...

[Paul Bearer 6,102]

I can honesty say that I will at least have three or four teams

 

 

 

jk...

 

One for each personality then Banshees?

[Twelvetrees 10]

First of all - well done OoO, and good luck.

 

Executions - Don't like them, don't want them. I think that no-one under sentence of death at the start of the year should be included. Of course, there's the possibility that someone may be on trial and be expected to be found guilty, or between verdict and sentencing, but we can't cover all bases.

 

Famous for being Famous - Too difficult to judge, so I agree with you. TMIB put it better.

 

Age Limits - no less than sixteen as of 01.01.08 is fine with me. At sixteen (at the moment in the UK) you can leave home and start work. There are international sportsmen and women aged 16 and 17, and we shouldn't be seeking to exclude them.

 

Amount of subs - I needed three last year, so no argument from me. I actually had more die in the last fortnight in December than in the whole of 2007.

 

Team Entry Limits - I find choosing one random team hard enough, but a theme team as well sounds fine (maybe only ten names in themes, as they can be harder to source).

 

Obituary Requirements - The problem with the BBC is its downwardly-dumbing spiral, and The Guardian can be very slow sometimes. Agree with NYT / Washington Post / CNN, but would also like to see either The Times or Daily Telegraph.

 

Unique Picks - Excellent. However, this will make your life absolute hell as you try and upload details on a wider-than-ever array of names.

 

Scoring System - Happy with it as it stands.

 

Wallpaper - Flock, like a bad Indian restaurant.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,200]

One question though. How are you going to implement the one team per person rule, are you just going to ask people to be honest, because that isn't going to happen?

 

Well, I can't stop people going on different e-mail accounts & doing that, especially if the e-mail addresses are very different.

I am also aware that people submit two teams on the same e-mail, allegedly "one for me", "One for my dad/mum/sister/brother/son/dog". Some are genuine, some aren't.

 

Again, the thinking I am having right now is there so much work on it to be done, that policing multiple entries will be something I won't have time to do, and I don't want theme teams to disappear. However, should anybody enter multiple teams under one name on one account (you never know.... ), then I'll have to accept only one.

 

Obituary Requirements - The problem with the BBC is its downwardly-dumbing spiral, and The Guardian can be very slow sometimes. Agree with NYT / Washington Post / CNN, but would also like to see either The Times or Daily Telegraph.

 

Twelvetrees:- The Times, Telegraph, Guardian & Independent are already there. I do also want to keep the obituary rules similar & British-centric as possible - it's not done any harm in terms of participants or success in the competition. The only reason I suggested a FULL obituary in the New York Times, is that a NY Times Obit covers notable global names.

There will be no CNN & no Washington Post, because I don't want the whole thing flooded by American nobodies - Governors of Maine, or rubbish baseball players etc. - the Rotten Dead Pool covers that already - that is a pool that, I believe, does the dead pool idea for a global audience all wrong. I don't want an obituary to be an assured thing for some picks.

That's why I'm looking at even reducing the AP feed from the Guardian, but I think it might get messy in working things out about what is an obit, what isn't.

 

Unique Picks - Excellent. However, this will make your life absolute hell as you try and upload details on a wider-than-ever array of names

 

Yep, I know. Don't worry Handrejka & Twelvetrees, I think this may end up being a long-term benefit for a short-term pain (for me). I'm also, maybe optimistically, hoping that it may mean more famous names, and more "off-the-wall" choices & not just silly suggestions. But we shall see......

[To die for 3]

Thanks all for your feedback so far, and please continue to vent your spleen or air your thoughts - it's most useful.

 

A quick update & and also an inkling of where I'm at at the moment:-

 

Executions

This one is still open - there's some very good points about either a lack of obits, or indeed, a lack of death - I think if pushed for a decision right now - a reduction of points or, as CP said, a ban on placing a joker on an executionee is more likely than a complete ban. But that's before I put the question to a wider scale.

I think the one thing I am wary of is a repeat of the Barzan/Bandar problem if the "Al-Majid three" aren't executed by year's end. If they are killed, or reprieved, then it's a bit more of guesswork than assured points.

 

Famous for being Famous

Good points by everybody - I've decided there won't be any restrictions on the level of famousness - so relatives of famous people or obscure "In the news" type people like Ainscow - fine. No qualifying articles or likewise needed. Ultimately, they may not get an obit anyway. Godot, people picking WWI veterans are hampered anyway, either by a lack of obits, or a lack of points.

 

Age Limits

Again, still open. Still likely to stick to 16 at this time - again, this is probably going to go to the wider DDP audience.

 

Amount of subs

Because of restrictions beyond my control, this will have to stay at 1, I'm afraid. Ultimately, if more picks die, I'll e-mail the relevant parties. I think last year was a bit freakish anyway.

 

Team Entry Limits

I'm veering towards (and would like) one player - one team. But I do want to see Theme Teams - I think they provide a bit of colour into it. Hopefully we can still have both. TMIB, I think giving extra points for dead picks on theme teams starts to confuse me with scoring and there could be argument about what a "theme team" is, so I don't think that option is going to be taken up - but thanks for suggesting it, I hadn't considered that.

 

Obituary Requirements

The third one that will go to a wider audience. All of you have made good points. Personally, I think that the BBC in itself covers a huge amount of potential picks & the rest supplement the less populist but still famous (ie WW2 heroes, civil servants, politicians etc.), so the need for CNN is perhaps lessened, because of the BBC. I'm still ruminating on this one.

 

Unique Picks

I can confirm it will now be 3 points for a unique pick, instead of 1, after it was proved workable. So get unique-pick spotting now!

 

Scoring System

Good suggestions, TMIB, thanks again. But Bank Holidays are a bone of contention as Scotland, Ireland, and of course the USA, Canada, Australia etc all get different bank holidays off!! New Year's Day though... hmm.. maybe.

One thing I can confirm though, is the current scoring brackets & current bonuses (unatural deaths, double points for joker) will remain.

 

 

 

So I hope that clears at least three points up - further feedback on the other three is welcome & will continue & soon I'll confirm what, if any, rule changes will affect the 2008 (and onwards) DDP.

Executions - If a pick still alive at pool end that picks potential points should be deducted from the team's score.

 

Just a thought..

[Handrejka 1,904]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you would, but what's to stop you stealing other people's unique picks? I know you're not likely to steal mine but it must be a worry for some of the better players of the game.

 

I've been meaning to ask Weatherman and CP the same so it's not just directed at you

 

Oh and one more question, conjoined twins - one pick or two?

[Banshees Scream 110]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you would, but what's to stop you stealing other people's unique picks? I know you're not likely to steal mine but it must be a worry for some of the better players of the game.

 

Handrejka, look. It's practical to hear an organizer swear that they will never do more then lay eyes on another unique pick other then their own. It's probable that they are lying and that they will pocket unique picks from other unique teams. I guess that is the luxury of being a DDP organizer, having the luxury of theft. Now I'm not saying Triple O will be raving through every list for a unique pick, because generally I think his form in DDP isn't desperate.

 

Anyway I'm trying to accommodate this list of mine and I'm in doubt for some of these Canadian names I have because I'm not sure if the BBC\New York Times will be loud with an obituary for them. Other names by the way like 'Sydney Pollock'- 'Shi Ming Teh' 'Phillip Griffith Jones' are all very anti - communication as far as their illness goes so already having a stacked list I have some decisions to make.

 

By the way, I think conjoined twins count as ... .. Well if you have any conjoined twins with terminal cancer ....... guess who is my joker!

[Handrejka 1,904]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you would, but what's to stop you stealing other people's unique picks? I know you're not likely to steal mine but it must be a worry for some of the better players of the game.

 

Handrejka, look. It's practical to hear an organizer swear that they will never do more then lay eyes on another unique pick other then their own. It's probable that they are lying and that they will pocket unique picks from other unique teams. I guess that is the luxury of being a DDP organizer, having the luxury of theft. Now I'm not saying Triple O will be raving through every list for a unique pick, because generally I think his form in DDP isn't desperate.

 

Anyway I'm trying to accommodate this list of mine and I'm in doubt for some of these Canadian names I have because I'm not sure if the BBC\New York Times will be loud with an obituary for them. Other names by the way like 'Sydney Pollock'- 'Shi Ming Teh' 'Phillip Griffith Jones' are all very anti - communication as far as their illness goes so already having a stacked list I have some decisions to make.

 

By the way, I think conjoined twins count as ... .. Well if you have any conjoined twins with terminal cancer ....... guess who is my joker!

 

 

Yes it is tempting to steal people's picks or engineer the scoring system to give you maximum points, which is partly why I don't play in my own pool.

[Canadian Paul 97]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you would, but what's to stop you stealing other people's unique picks? I know you're not likely to steal mine but it must be a worry for some of the better players of the game.

 

I've been meaning to ask Weatherman and CP the same so it's not just directed at you

 

Oh and one more question, conjoined twins - one pick or two?

 

Luckily for me, 18 out of my 20 picks for the CPDP were unique and the other two, Jack Ramsay and Evel Knievel, were clearly public before the competition (Ramsay was picked by FF last year and Knievel is... well, Knievel). I do understand the worry; last year when I saw Michael Mayne cross my email account, there was temptation (glad I didn't though, since he didn't end up with a proper obit). Personally, I'm always willing to send my picks to one "safety" chosen by the community, so long as they've already sent me their list (ie. so that they can't take names from me). But even still, trust has to start somewhere. What if the "safety" is colluding with me or, on the opposite side of the coin, wants one of my picks to themselves and claims that they weren't on the list I sent them. My thought is that DP organizers put so much effort into running their pools that it wouldn't be worth it to sully it by cheating. I guess there is no way to technically stop someone from cheating if they really want to, but I can't imagine people who put their time into organizing a deadpool would do that. Besides, there's not much valour in winning your own competition, whether you cheat or not.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,200]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you would, but what's to stop you stealing other people's unique picks? I know you're not likely to steal mine but it must be a worry for some of the better players of the game.

 

I've been meaning to ask Weatherman and CP the same so it's not just directed at you

 

Oh and one more question, conjoined twins - one pick or two?

 

This is a uniform response to everyone, H, not a rebuttal personally.

 

1) I have my own decent unique picks without picking anyone elses.

2) I won't have time!! I doubt I'll even look at people's teams, I'll just update them & it's only when the dust settles on the 1st January that I'll properly look at candidates. The teams are updated about 20-30 in a go, so it's not like I will be scouring with too finely-toothed a comb. All I will be checking is picks of people already dead and anyone under 16 etc & those people who die before the competition is out - I'll probably not even notice the unique picks properly and even then, won't have the time to research them

3) I have my 20 names ready, with a backlist of another 20 in case of illness/death etc - I don't see myself veering off that list too much, unless someone announces terminal pancreatic cancer in the next three weeks.

4) My form in past DDP's shows that I don't really need to rely on anyone else's picks to do a decent job.

5) If I win by a country mile, it doesn't look good.

6) I want to name my team early as it helps me test everything & load it all up properly.

 

I would name all of my potential team if it didn't give away potential picks but I will say the following as it stands are in - and this is to reassure you all a bit:-

 

Pollack, Hermon, Heston, Jones Griffiths, Pym, Morgan, Laurent, Solzhenitsyn, Graham, Ford, Moncur, Wisdom, d'Oliviera, Plews.

 

The above 14 have either been mentioned before in despatches, on the DL, or picked by me in the past.

 

The other 6? 4 are involved in sport, 1 in politics, and 1 in film/TV.

 

I think that's more than fair. I said I'd be honest & I will. I hope others will be too - but fat chance....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cojoined twins... pfff... two. Reason being is, if they are separated & one dies, and the other one lives - then do I give the points, in theory, for a living person? Probably not.

 

But also, if both die, and both are named separately, then the person picking them gets a double bonus!

 

So, two - thanks for the query.

 

 

 

I've done a lot of the preparation today for 2008 - there's a bit more to do - I will let you all know in due course once things are ready & decisions made - I am aware you all want to finalise candidate names or whittle a shortlist, so a decision on the 3 contentious issues may be taken sooner, rather than later.

[Guest Sour Grapes]

OoO, send your team to Windsor via PM with your backups.

 

He will not be running in the DDP, nor will he be using his account in the near future. He will confirm your team should anybody call you a 'cheating bastard'. He will be prompted to look at his inbox only after 1st of January, and only after it has been requested by from a moderator with whom he has other contact.

 

You can trust Windsor. Honest...

[Madame Defarge 21]

OoO, send your team to Windsor via PM with your backups.

 

He will not be running in the DDP, nor will he be using his account in the near future. He will confirm your team should anybody call you a 'cheating bastard'. He will be prompted to look at his inbox only after 1st of January, and only after it has been requested by from a moderator with whom he has other contact.

 

You can trust Windsor. Honest...

Good grief. No offense intended but arent you being just a leeeetle paranoid? I mean isnt this supposed to be a gentlemans game governed by a code of honor? Not to worry. I've called a friend of mine and he's agreed to oversee the entire operation.

[maryportfuncity 10,649]

OoO, send your team to Windsor via PM with your backups.

 

He will not be running in the DDP, nor will he be using his account in the near future. He will confirm your team should anybody call you a 'cheating bastard'. He will be prompted to look at his inbox only after 1st of January, and only after it has been requested by from a moderator with whom he has other contact.

 

You can trust Windsor. Honest...

 

 

Hello Windsor, how ya doin'?

[Guest Sour Grapes]

If it is not a big deal, why I am I still waiting for confirmation that I have been sent a PM by OoO?

It is possibly one of the best vertification processes available.

 

I can't read PM's without logging in, and if I log in you will know about it. Currently I have not logged in since 30 Oct, and have no intention of doing so before 1st January 2008.

 

So can I expect an email on 1st December say? I'm not the only one who doesn't trust him as far as I could throw him. I'm just being more vocal about it.

 

I look forward to his reply in this thread.