2009 DDP

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

Yep, I know it's early, but with feck all happening at the moment, it's a half-decent time to at least look over some of the rules.

Again, feedback needed/welcomed.

 

Once again, just to confirm, it is free, I am doing it again next year at the very least, the old basics still apply.

 

Thoughts though to throw open:

 

Executions

Should they be brought back? I mean anyone who has or would've picked the Bali 3 or Al-Majid & co. would - so far - be still waiting. But is it still against the ethics of the game? Either way, no-one has complained bitterly about them being dropped

 

OoO's personal opinion: Unlikely to make a return unless there is a great sea change to demand it be so.

 

Famous SOLELY for being ill

Less so Randy Pausch, but more so Trudi Endersby, Sharon Mevismler & half of MPFC's current team. I don't mind some on there, but I just thought Rachel Jones' death was a bit too sad & her pick was in poor taste. If there's any unease from my end about this, it's about people being picked like her - remember DDP does come up quite high on the Google register for some people.

Should there be a rule in & what is that rule? A terminal illness, for example? How would we define, say, Wendy Ainscow & other sad stories?

 

OoO's personal opinion: Would like the likes of the above out, but thinks it will be too hard to marshal & a bit unclear who is "safe" and who isn't.

 

The Guardian

Almost certain to be dropped. When the DDP started, the Guardian, for all its crapness at least wrote its own reports, rather than mere sloppy AP feeds. Although the actual amount of hits there would've been without it is relatively small, it can - and has - made a difference. More worringly, there has been a lot of protest about obscure Americans getting very easy hits (changed recently, no Putnam, Kozol, Kohlman though, how strange...) & in some cases, its a fair argument.

 

I would like to bring in a British Bonus, but this is very hard to a) set-up & adminster. For example, Michael Gough might miss out, as he was born in Malaya, but Steve-O, despite being American, was born in Britain. Do both still apply? The answer would be, in order, yes and no, for me, but there is enough grey in the shading to blur the issue.

 

Also, I am keen not to alienate any of our American DDP'rs (well, maybe one or two idiots, but not the whole), but I do feel that it is actually more difficult - despite this year's top 5 - for the bulk of the British entrants.

 

So I would like to drop the Guardian - outright - no obits, no AP feeds, nothing. Reuters & the BBC would stay to help some of the more unlikely candidates for an obit.

 

So, if I do that

1) Do people go along with that? Or is this going to make me less popular than Gordon Brown? (God forbid)

 

2) Should any other UK paper or news source (no, MPFC, NOT Maryport Parish Weekly) replace the Guardian as a result?

 

3) If I chose, say, a completely independent paper, say one in Germany, France, Argentina whatever & they mentioned the death, would that be a good compromise, rather than bring in a NY Times - which would only make the matters worse.

 

DDP is international sure, but it is also rooted in British tradition, and I'd like to keep at least a vestige of it.

 

 

Finally, the Guardian, as often shown, does obits for friends, dads, ex-teachers & the tramp in the street. Hardly the glitterati of the world...

 

 

OoO's opinion: Death to the Guardian. Arguments are going to have to be DAMN good to keep it.

 

4) Unless anyone can think of a cast-iron way to bring in the British Bonus & make everyone happy?

 

5) Any other rule changes people want to bring in. 18 is staying at 18 for a minimum age & I think the unique pick rule has been a great success. But I'd be interested in your opinions.

 

 

No rush - new rules will be published mid-November in early preparation for the entries soon thereafter.

 

Ta ever so!

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

I'd say leave everthing exactly as it is. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[themaninblack 2,112]

It's funny you've kicked off DDP09 OoO because I was sorely tempted to start a thread

as I'm already pondering possibles and definites for next year! (99 days to go..)

 

Yes the Guardian is a farce, but I would only include 'proper' obits, that's published in the paper

with the exception of those wanky "My father Alfred was a great milkman" 'Other Lives' obits..

Thing is, if you exclude the Guardian, do you also exclude the Times, Telegraph etc if they have brief mentions?

 

As for those who are famous for being ill, there needs to be some definition here.

Linda Uttley and Paul Birch are at least known for something else other than illness (to be fair though, I

didn't know Uttley from adam before the news of her illness, whereas I've seen Birch play in the dim and

distant past).

 

But those who are known only for their 'brave fight' and nothing else, maybe should be excluded...

 

As for British bonus...hmmm. Don't want to complicate things. The great thing about DDP is its simplicity. That's why

I didn't enter the other deadpools around: They're far too fiddly!

 

I did think about an idea for bonus points for unique picks even if they don't die!

I know it sounds odd, but once the cats let out of the bag, they have to stiff or all your hard work digging out

a unique would be for nothing. You get the bonus first and then the extra points when they die.

The drawback of course is that any old (or young) hobbledehoy gets chosen, even if they haven't the remotest chance of pegging it!

 

There are my thoughts...

[Handrejka 1,903]

Hmm, there's a lot of food for thought there.

 

Executions - leave them out, nobody has missed them.

 

Famous for being ill - I agree that they should be dropped but it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Would mental illnesses count here too? Eating disorder sufferers (my pet subject I know, but it's close to home). I tried to have that rule in my dead pool but found it too hard to police and that was with a small deadpool, I do stick to my "no one famous simply for being the victim of a crime" rule and I did think about saying that the picks had to have been in the public eye for at least three months which would stop people putting in the sad cases you always seem to hear about around Christmas time. (Josie Groves for example)

 

 

The Guardian - Er well I'm only in the position that I'm in on the scoreboard because of the Guardian (even though I think Nurmi and Mordyukova were bona fide choices)but I agree that Guardian obits have become a joke so I'm not really sure.

 

British bonus - good idea but hard to define again.

 

Minimum age should stay at 18.

 

One other thing I was thinking about would be a "deadly duo" bonus. For picks that just miss out on being a unique pick, ie only two teams have chosen them perhaps a bonus of one point?

[maryportfuncity 10,630]

Hmmm

 

British bonus....Noooo! We can and will maintain a British tradition without that. National bonuses work best when they encourage scouring and selecting those from obscure places. Administering such a bonus is also likely to be grim given the tonnage of entries. Easier bonuses and those favouring ambitious picks are best. I liked the Poolofdeath bonus for dying on the job, though we've yet to resolve whether Amy Winehouse's 'job' includes parading for the press. That's an easy bonus to award and one encouraging the pick of assassination targets, sportspeople and the rest.

 

Famous for being ill....well, it's done me f**k all good this year. I'll admit it's a touchy area, I was gambling on unique pick bonuses for some when others survived or died without national press coverage. I might be the worst offender but I'm not planning on such a borderline team again after this year's experiment and a tightening of the rules wouldn't bother me. There is - however - a certain legitimacy when they've made an issue of their illness. Trudi Endersby was national news and the centre of an advert, if Jane Tomlinson is a fair pick so is Ms Endersby, or Dawn Hughes who featured in a national tv series....IMHO. Both used their illness as a springboard to make other points.

 

The Guardian......well, the sales are dropping anyway, wouldn't miss it and I'd say OoO is right there.

[Godot 149]

I would leave it as it is. I was following Randy Pausch and, in fact, wrote about him as I thought he was an inspiring figure. Yes, it's true, he wouldn't have featured without his illness but I still think he was a legitimate pick. You can't win the DDP without some low hanging fruit.

 

I dunno about the Guardian, don't read it.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

Interesting, most of the "Brits" seem to favour axing the Guardian. I'd be interested in what the Yanks, Canucks, Eyties, Frogs, Krauts & Aussies (and any other foreign muck nation ) say - especially as it might affect them more.

 

Quick answers:

TMIB

- no, if the Times et al includes it, fair dos. Because the Guardian is under threat of being dropped because of the AP feed which is getting worse & worse, not so much "Fred was my best friend.." It's going to be very rare that happens, if at all, that a friend will get an obit.

 

I did also stipulate - in bold - solely for being ill. So Susan Atkins, Birch, Tomlinson fine - it's more those included with rare illnesses in the Daily Mail etc I'm trying to avoid.

 

Your unique pick bonus is too confusing for my little brain, but a good idea. But that's the DP rules, son with UP's!

 

Handy-

It IS staying at 18. That's not in question. Deadly Duo? Maybe.. I shall think about it, but I want the essence of it to being pride of picking a damn good unique pick. Not sure how easy it is to put into code though - I'll have to consult with the DDP monkeys er.. wizards.

 

MPFC

Fair point about Hughes & Endersby, not just fair but a good point too. It is looking difficult to draw the line - but I think it's the likes of Jones I want to try & get out but I don't really know how possible all this is to do.

 

 

Ultimately, I still want to keep it largely untouched & largely simple & certainly not difficult to follow and as open as possible, so I have to watch all these bonuses/rules etc.

 

 

 

 

One thing is for sure - if ANY team names anybody obviously long-dead on their 2009 team - no 2nd chances - no reserves - there are simply no excuses. That I WILL crack down on.

[Handrejka 1,903]

I know the minimum age of 18 is staying, I was just agreeing with you.

 

Deadly due bonus was just selfish reasons as I thought I'd got quite a nice unique pick with Hiroo Onodo but notice he's getting a bit more interest from dead poolers and just sort of wanted to protect that a bit . I don't know, almost like an "I saw him first". Ignore me, I'm babbling now. You're doing a good job

[CarolAnn 926]

Please overlook my ignorance, but I have never entered the DDP (although I was considering it for 2009).

 

As far as the Guardian goes...I don't see anything that lists the acceptable obit sources on the website (it's 11pm and I admit I'm not searching too deeply). What sources will you be accepting? Any US/North American papers?

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

I don't enter a team into the DDP, so please consider this a disinterested view. Or do I mean uninterested? Neutral, anyway. How about the death has to be listed somewhere on the BBC website's news front page? That page currently lists no deaths, but then did anyone noteworthy die in the last 48 hours? Let's ask wiki, who list the following:

 

Richard Henyard, 34, American murderer, execution by lethal injection. [1]

Wally Hilgenberg, 66, American football player, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. [2]

Rudolf Illovszky, 86, Hungarian footballer and manager, pneumonia. [3]

Peter Leonard, 66, Australian broadcaster, mesothelioma. [4]

Matti Juhani Saari, 22, Finnish school shooter, suicide by gunshot. [5]

William Woodruff, 92, British historian and author. [6]

 

Sep 22

Plato Andros, 86, American football player. [7]

H. Dale Cook, 84, American federal judge since 1974, cancer. [8]

Thomas Dörflein, 44, German zookeeper, surrogate parent of the polar bear Knut, heart attack. [9]

 

Sep 21

Carlos González Cruchaga, 87, Chilean bishop of the Diocese of Talca (1967–1996). [10] (Spanish)

Mary Garber, 92, American sportswriter. [11]

Sir Brian Pippard, 88, British physicist, Cavendish Professor of Physics (1971–1984). [12]

Barefoot Sanders, 83, American federal judge, natural causes. [13]

Olov Svedelid, 76, Swedish writer. [14] (Swedish)

Paul Tansey, 59, Irish economics editor (The Irish Times). [15]

Dingiri Banda Wijetunga, 92, Sri Lankan prime minister (1989–1993), president (1993–1994), after long illness. [16]

 

 

Never heard of any of 'em.

[Windsor 2,233]

Executions should still not be allowed .

 

The famous for being ill rule should still apply. At the very least, the Josie Groves should be barred. There also seem sto be a trend in people suing the NHS for cancer drugs. When they die, they are guaranteed a BBC obit if their story has been followed. I don't care how much times you call them a campaigner - they are only really famous because they are ill and dying. Thus they should not count.

 

If I were you, I'd also consider a ban on those who are only famous because of their advanced age. In this category I would include war veterans and the worlds oldest. If they are remotely famous (say VC winners) perhaps that constitutes fame? Famous for being old is, in my opinion, basically the same as being famous for being ill. I think even Allingham should be banned. His celebrity only comes from the fact that he has lived so long.

 

Then again, you all might disagree.

[Guest TDF]

I suggest a penalty for deaths from cancer (as per CPDP) as this seems to be the most commonly announced illness. "Low hanging fruit" may suffer from this as the mis-diagnosis of a cancer and the associated "fight" appear to make the most headlines.

 

I think the DDP already penalises picks that are v.old, although would it be worth lowering the points scored for any pick over 100?

[maryportfuncity 10,630]

MPFC

Fair point about Hughes & Endersby, not just fair but a good point too. It is looking difficult to draw the line - but I think it's the likes of Jones I want to try & get out but I don't really know how possible all this is to do.

 

 

Ultimately, I still want to keep it largely untouched & largely simple & certainly not difficult to follow and as open as possible, so I have to watch all these bonuses/rules etc.

 

A suggestion - I guess - would be to allow them in only if they'd built on the illness in some way. So - for example - there was evidence of ongoing media coverage with a developing story and/or if they that blatantly contributed to their own fame beyond talking to a journalist. In other words, if the story had developed and been featured in slightly different ways two or three times. The way I see it, that's the difference between

 

Rachel - Tragic Mum - Jones

 

and

 

Trudi - I know I'm a tragic mum and I'm doing this to stop others following - Endersby.

 

We don't make the rules for the way the world perceives fame and the way I see Ms Endersby and Dawn Hughes is that they're as famous - say - as a Big Brother house member who gets nowhere near winning but still stumbles around the Z list by virtue of the odd party and the odd bit of media whoring.

 

It still leaves us with some tough judgements. Wendy Ainscow for one. She's fair game (heh heh) in my opinion because despite being famous for her serial suicide attempts she did allow a full-length film with Timothy Spall and Brenda Blethyn which purported to be a biopic. That's building on fame. If she's disallowed presumably that disallows the likes of WW1 vet Bill Stone who's fame rests solely on his longevity. I mean, Harry Patch and - now - Henry Allingham are authors FFS!

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

Oh cripes, I thought this thread would have tumbleweed blowing through it!

 

CarolAnn: Firstly, you would be very welcome if you join the competition next year.

 

Current Obit rules are here:

Acceptable sources include (but are not limited to): BBC News, The Times, Independent, Guardian, Observer, Reuters UK.

 

We do not accept: Local or regional British newspapers, special interest media (e.g. Snooker Weekly or whatever), non-UK media, general Internet news pages (MSN etc), blogs, or Wikipedia!!

 

Cowboy Ronnie: Interesting idea, but two main drawbacks - one it panders to the celebrity worship fest that the BBC has become - so genuine heros will not get an obit - and a News Front Page is different depending on which region you are in... and what time you check in.. so it's too problematical.

 

Windsor: Firstly, I hope you will return to the DDP next year. I think with the advanced age, the points penalty does work - certainly the rewards are minimal compared to say, Paul Newman or Bobby Robson. I think this way is better than outright banning. But spot on with the cancer/local heroes/etc etc. It will need me to think of a defining answer

 

TdF Yep, I can understand that from one point of view. But, for example, Rick Wright's death was a surprise & some picks, like Paul Newman, start off healthy(ish), THEN get cancer. It would be a bit harsh to penalise in that case. The other problem is some of the more obscure or broadsheet obits often don't say a cause of death, so it's potentially another minefield.

 

 

 

 

Don't think I'm dismissing any ideas, far from it & almost to the contrary.

 

But it's got to be kept simple & it's got to be clear - if there is a bonus, penalty or banning - what the guidelines are. Executions were piss easy.

[Twelvetrees 10]

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

Regarding The Guardian. Yes, it has become lazy, but as it is a site that carries obits. that others may not, I think it worth persevering with, and it's not as though AP feeds are uniformly grossly inaccurate. I would add The Torygraph to those mentioned, I guess it's there by default, but as it tends to carry more military obits., it may be worthy of mentioning in dipsatches. Would you also consider naming the International Herald Tribune for our ex-colonial entrants? I don't care, but in a kind of hands-across-the-ocean-please-don't-let-Sarah-Palin-anywhere-near-a-nuclear-device kind of way, it might be nice.

 

As someome who managed to pick seventeen unique picks this year, I wouldn't care to see extra points just for choosing them. It's a dead pool, not a selection contest. I took the gamble and lost. I don't need charity, just a global cold snap in the next three months.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

I'm really not in favour of dropping The Guardian. I'd be interested to know how many DDP hits this year have scored points only because they were mentioned in The Guardian and nowhere else. I doubt there are that many and, if that is the case, is it really worth contemplating changing the rules? What if The Times, Independent or Telegraph also started to including AP obits on their online sites? Would they be next to go?

 

As for banning the famous for being ill, I appreciate that it would be a well intentioned move, but does concern over morals and poor taste really have a place in deadpooling? Picking a list of twenty people you think are going to die over the next year is seen by the vast majority of people as morally beyond the pale anyway, I don't think any amount of tweaking the eligibility criteria for candidates would placate our detractors.

 

"British Bonus" - Don't agree at all. I've always liked the internationalist theme to the DDP and I'd hate to see it compromised. In what way is a dead Briton worth more than a dead Laotion?

 

Just because I don't agree with your new ideas, OoO, doesn't mean I don't think you're doing a great job running the DDP - long may you reign. But, for as long as the customers are satisfied, I just can't see the point in all of this. It's like you were given a Ferrari for Christmas last year and, after a year of faultless driving, you decide to start tinkering with the engine. I strongly urge you to resist the temptation to fiddle.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

I'm really not in favour of dropping The Guardian. I'd be interested to know who many DDP hits this year have scored points only because they were mentioned in The Guardian and nowhere else. I doubt there are that many and, if that is the case, is it really worth contemplating changing the rules? What if The Times, Independent or Telegraph also started to including AP obits on their online sites? Would they be next to go?

 

But, for as long as the customers are satisfied, I just can't see the point in all of this.

 

On the point of satisfaction, quite a few of the natives are revolting. But whether they are revolting enough I am waiting to see.

 

I can find out for you out of interest about how much extra the Guardian has produced, but I'll have to do it over the weekend.

IIRC, Georgia Frontiere was one - but I'll check it as I have to check stuff anyway this weekend.

 

 

Of course, I could simply drop the Guardian due to laziness - less hits means less work ... heh heh

[themaninblack 2,112]

I have a few suggestions in terms of presentation..

 

It is workable to have a blog, to stream latest news, gossip on potential picks health etc?

Also, how about a podcast? Everybody's doing it...

[Handrejka 1,903]

I'm really not in favour of dropping The Guardian. I'd be interested to know who many DDP hits this year have scored points only because they were mentioned in The Guardian and nowhere else. I doubt there are that many and, if that is the case, is it really worth contemplating changing the rules? What if The Times, Independent or Telegraph also started to including AP obits on their online sites? Would they be next to go?

 

But, for as long as the customers are satisfied, I just can't see the point in all of this.

 

On the point of satisfaction, quite a few of the natives are revolting. But whether they are revolting enough I am waiting to see.

 

I can find out for you out of interest about how much extra the Guardian has produced, but I'll have to do it over the weekend.

IIRC, Georgia Frontiere was one - but I'll check it as I have to check stuff anyway this weekend.

 

 

Of course, I could simply drop the Guardian due to laziness - less hits means less work ... heh heh

 

 

I thought Nurmi and Mordyukova may have been two other but I'm releived that Nurmi got an obit in the Times and Mordyukova in the Indy so I'm relieved.

 

I know TMIB's suggestion was tongue in cheek but a blog might be a good idea

 

Edit - Ok I'm sad enough to have searched and apart Georgia Frontiere the following people only seemed to obtain obits in the Guardian - Bobby Murcer, Arbella Ewing, Tsoneyo Toyonaga and Viktor Schreckengost. I didn't check to see what effect that had on the scoreboard and if anyone wants to double check they are most welcome.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

I know TMIB's suggestion was tongue in cheek but a blog might be a good idea

 

Edit - Ok I'm sad enough to have searched and apart Georgia Frontiere the following people only seemed to obtain obits in the Guardian - Bobby Murcer, Arbella Ewing, Tsoneyo Toyonaga and Viktor Schreckengost. I didn't check to see what effect that had on the scoreboard and if anyone wants to double check they are most welcome.

 

TMIB - you have my regular updates on the front page, plus DL to discuss any illnesses (Not that anybody does any more, mind...) I normally rant in the (unread) e-mails anyway.

 

If you wish to start a blog that is officially "endorsed" by DDP, be my guest.

 

Handrejka-

Thank you. Being laid low after surgery today, I haven't had the strength to get on here until now & catch up. So only 5 out of 100+..

 

EDIT - It's 6 - Lynn Kohlman obit

 

Interesting. Very in-ter-est-er-ing (said a la Alec Guinness)

 

 

I shall put it to the wider audience whenever someone dies (F*** knows when that'll be going by news lately) & make a final decision late October so everyone has enough time to prepare.

 

However, I think changes - as they are - will be minimal.

[themaninblack 2,112]

I know TMIB's suggestion was tongue in cheek but a blog might be a good idea

 

Edit - Ok I'm sad enough to have searched and apart Georgia Frontiere the following people only seemed to obtain obits in the Guardian - Bobby Murcer, Arbella Ewing, Tsoneyo Toyonaga and Viktor Schreckengost. I didn't check to see what effect that had on the scoreboard and if anyone wants to double check they are most welcome.

 

TMIB - you have my regular updates on the front page, plus DL to discuss any illnesses (Not that anybody does any more, mind...) I normally rant in the (unread) e-mails anyway.

 

If you wish to start a blog that is officially "endorsed" by DDP, be my guest.

Handrejka-

Thank you. Being laid low after surgery today, I haven't had the strength to get on here until now & catch up. So only 5 out of 100+..

 

EDIT - It's 6 - Lynn Kohlman obit

 

Interesting. Very in-ter-est-er-ing (said a la Alec Guinness)

 

 

I shall put it to the wider audience whenever someone dies (F*** knows when that'll be going by news lately) & make a final decision late October so everyone has enough time to prepare.

 

However, I think changes - as they are - will be minimal.

 

 

I may well take you up on that OoO...

 

Also, Has there been any points won thanks to the much malaigned 'Other Lives' Obit in the Grauniad?

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

Also, Has there been any points won thanks to the much malaigned 'Other Lives' Obit in the Grauniad?

 

Not yet - but if I don't recover from the surgery enough*, feel free to add me on for next year. I'll try & go on the 13th of the month. I'll say it's my dying wish to have an obit in the Guardian for I admire i so

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Unlikely because I'm munching a sausage roll now

[honez 79]

I've been thinking about the "British Bonus" option OoO has mentioned and come up with an idea. How about a country/population bonus instead?

This could be based on an inverse scale where the nationality of a hit scores, say, between 1 & 5 points. The larger the population, say 200 million or more scores 1 pt, 100-200 million 2 pts, 100-75 million 3 pts, 20-75 million 4 pts and < 20 million 5 pts.

 

This would take the focus away from US celebs back to British, and even better, Aussies & Kiwis.

It might be a bit of a bugger to manage though, and there could be bitter debate about the nationality of some celebs. Perhaps country of birth might be better.

 

Anyway, just a thought.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,186]

Hi, just to say sorry to the DL regulars who had to put up with the DDP e-mail about the same subject - unless you like debating it twice!

 

Much to my surprise, people have actually read the e-mails & I've got a good few replies to ponder - one has come up with not just one - but two - excellent sources for an obit which may cover a wider range, both UK & globally.

 

I'll give it a while yet, perhaps another week or two but mood of thought is:

Guardian - yeah it has its faults, but don't drop it.

Executions - nope to return.

Brit Bonus - nope.

Ill for being Ill - Surprisingly, strongly against them being included. More than I thought. I might need to think about this one & see if there's a general guideline I can think of or if it's just hit & miss by each named pick.

 

 

Honez... I think I would have a heart-attack working out the scores under that system. But it would be nice if a Laotian scored 1,000 points & a USA pick one point

[Lord Football 0]

Why not just use Wikipedia? Ok, so you'd be allowing pretty much anyone but even Wiki has certain standards for their articles, so we wouldn't end up with someone's mum or the bloke next door being allowed on DDP. The art of DDP I've always thought is doing the research and then pitting that research against several hundred similarly sick pups. The dying is an addition. So, my view, if someone can do the research and the grim reaper does the rest, then the points should count.

 

In the DP I run (Fantasy Funerals on TFF for any footie fans out there), my only criteria is that the person selected must have an entry on Wikipedia. That way it stops anyone entering one post mortem and if the individual passes the wiki criteria, who am I to enter.

 

 

I'd also stop any selections of people who are over 100, people who play in The Pogues and Southend United footballers.