2009 DDP

[The Miser 17]

Here is the current standings for 2008 with 52 days to go...

 

1. The Living End 108 - 13 hits (Record)

2. Wormer, He's a Dead Man! Marmalard, Dead! Niedermeyer... 98 - 11 hits

3. Canadian Paul 95 - 13 hits (Record)

3. Godot's Waiting List 95 - 12 hits

5. They're Dead, Y'Know! 84 - 12 hits

6. Master Mind 83 - 10 hits

7. Tonight Matthew, I'm Going To Be Badly-Torn Boy 82 - 9 hits

8. Meet Your Maker 80 - 10 hits

8. No Noose Is Good Noose 80 - 9 hits

10. Octopus of Odstock 67 - 10 hits

 

Still all to play for...

 

Incidentially, Larry James' death is the 126th for the year and is a new record!

 

 

 

I hate 11th....but im less better since its OOO.

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

But some people turn the illness into a surrogate career. So - for example - Jane Tomlinson went on for ages and gained high profile publicity, and still kept people guessing so well that she survived some deadpool nominations in the years before she died.

[deadsox 891]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

But some people turn the illness into a surrogate career. So - for example - Jane Tomlinson went on for ages and gained high profile publicity, and still kept people guessing so well that she survived some deadpool nominations in the years before she died.

 

Why does it matter how a person became famous? They're either famous or not. Should we discriminate against those who became famous for criminal activities, e.g.? It's not a morality play, just a game to predict which celebrities will die. Does Paris Hilton "deserve" to be a celebrity any more than Terry Schiavo?

[themaninblack 2,112]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

But some people turn the illness into a surrogate career. So - for example - Jane Tomlinson went on for ages and gained high profile publicity, and still kept people guessing so well that she survived some deadpool nominations in the years before she died.

 

Why does it matter how a person became famous? They're either famous or not. Should we discriminate against those who became famous for criminal activities, e.g.? It's not a morality play, just a game to predict which celebrities will die. Does Paris Hilton "deserve" to be a celebrity any more than Terry Schiavo?

 

Quite right. Famous people have feelings too...

[Twelvetrees 10]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

But some people turn the illness into a surrogate career. So - for example - Jane Tomlinson went on for ages and gained high profile publicity, and still kept people guessing so well that she survived some deadpool nominations in the years before she died.

 

Why does it matter how a person became famous? They're either famous or not. Should we discriminate against those who became famous for criminal activities, e.g.? It's not a morality play, just a game to predict which celebrities will die. Does Paris Hilton "deserve" to be a celebrity any more than Terry Schiavo?

 

Quite right. Famous people have feelings too...

 

Kent Brockman's Two Cents says...yes, Jane Tomlinson became famous by dealing with adversity - she battled her illness through nationally recognised (OED spelling) achievement, thereby, IMHO, hurdling the fame barrier. The bar, however, does have to be drawn somewhere - and some terminally ill yokel, however sad their plight, who appears in the Trowbridge Presdigitator, does not limbo. Octopus has to set the bar, and I will happily conform to his decision. Peace.

[Lard Bazaar 3,687]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

But some people turn the illness into a surrogate career. So - for example - Jane Tomlinson went on for ages and gained high profile publicity, and still kept people guessing so well that she survived some deadpool nominations in the years before she died.

 

Why does it matter how a person became famous? They're either famous or not. Should we discriminate against those who became famous for criminal activities, e.g.? It's not a morality play, just a game to predict which celebrities will die. Does Paris Hilton "deserve" to be a celebrity any more than Terry Schiavo?

 

Quite right. Famous people have feelings too...

 

Kent Brockman's Two Cents says...yes, Jane Tomlinson became famous by dealing with adversity - she battled her illness through nationally recognised (OED spelling) achievement, thereby, IMHO, hurdling the fame barrier. The bar, however, does have to be drawn somewhere - and some terminally ill yokel, however sad their plight, who appears in the Trowbridge Presdigitator, does not limbo. Octopus has to set the bar, and I will happily conform to his decision. Peace.

 

But, with Jane Tomlinson, the fact remains that she was not famous before becoming ill, so by that token she would not qualify if that was the criteria. Not that I care, I'm rubbish at this bloody game.

[Twelvetrees 10]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

But some people turn the illness into a surrogate career. So - for example - Jane Tomlinson went on for ages and gained high profile publicity, and still kept people guessing so well that she survived some deadpool nominations in the years before she died.

 

Why does it matter how a person became famous? They're either famous or not. Should we discriminate against those who became famous for criminal activities, e.g.? It's not a morality play, just a game to predict which celebrities will die. Does Paris Hilton "deserve" to be a celebrity any more than Terry Schiavo?

 

Quite right. Famous people have feelings too...

 

Kent Brockman's Two Cents says...yes, Jane Tomlinson became famous by dealing with adversity - she battled her illness through nationally recognised (OED spelling) achievement, thereby, IMHO, hurdling the fame barrier. The bar, however, does have to be drawn somewhere - and some terminally ill yokel, however sad their plight, who appears in the Trowbridge Presdigitator, does not limbo. Octopus has to set the bar, and I will happily conform to his decision. Peace.

 

But, with Jane Tomlinson, the fact remains that she was not famous before becoming ill, so by that token she would not qualify if that was the criteria. Not that I care, I'm rubbish at this bloody game.

 

Criterion. Apart from that I agree entirely, I was just pointing out that I'd rather not be in any of Odstock's four pairs of shoes. And I'm even more useless than you as my current DDP performance shows - however I put that down partly to the fact I'd never choose a self-diagnosed target myself - it's the moral equivalent of stalking the cancer ward for free grapes. Cheer-oh!

[Octopus of Odstock 1,859]

There is a very easy way to settle it.

For the person to qualify for entry, they would need to have some degree of fame BEFORE they became ill due to a terminal illness. If they only became noted after, or as a result of their terminal illness, they should not be valid candidates.

 

If only it were that simple.

 

"Famous for being ill" doesn't just mean a terminal illness. Where do you fit Wendy Ainscow, or John Hogan or Barry Austin or that lady who wants to go to that suicide clinic in Switzerland? What about the likes of Karen Matthews or the mother of Baby P? They're not terminally ill, but do they fall under the same bracket? Randy Pausch was known to "some" people and had a Wikipedia page BEFORE his terminal illness diagnosis. Famous or non famous?

 

As Twelvetrees said, it's not an easy choice to make, and rather than have mass confusion & lots more work & headaches, let's just allow them in.

 

Chances are though with a lot of the "famous for being ill":

1. Don't get Obits anyway - ie Jones
   
2. Are already dead but didn't get any press
   
3. Live on for much longer than the press say they do (Tomlinson, Taylor etc etc)
    
   so it often gets balanced out anyway.
   

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

I'd missed the above post, or I wouldn't have posted such ignorant tosh re the latest low hanger on the Fringes of Fame thread.

 

I know it ain't easy OoO but I think the above is about right. As you clearly point out with regard to the likes of Rachel Jones, they often get overlooked when they die, even by the papers who were happy to cover their 'tragic' circumstances beforehand.

[Windsor 2,143]

Just to clarify - am I correct in saying that for 2009 there will be no rule preventing a team choosing a candidate who is famous soley for being ill? All that this ill nobody will need is an obit from the media listed on the site?

[themaninblack 2,112]

Just to clarify - am I correct in saying that for 2009 there will be no rule preventing a team choosing a candidate who is famous soley for being ill? All that this ill nobody will need is an obit from the media listed on the site?

 

Yes, for now...

[Octopus of Odstock 1,859]

Just to clarify - am I correct in saying that for 2009 there will be no rule preventing a team choosing a candidate who is famous soley for being ill? All that this ill nobody will need is an obit from the media listed on the site?

 

That's right, for 2009 anyway.

 

I'll look at something easy to understand & 100% watertight for 2010, if I'm still running it then.

 

 

 

PS I hope to have the 2009 game "open" on Saturday night all being well, if not, it will be Sunday morning.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,288]

Just to clarify - am I correct in saying that for 2009 there will be no rule preventing a team choosing a candidate who is famous soley for being ill? All that this ill nobody will need is an obit from the media listed on the site?

 

That's right, for 2009 anyway.

 

I'll look at something easy to understand & 100% watertight for 2010, if I'm still running it then.

 

 

 

PS I hope to have the 2009 game "open" on Saturday night all being well, if not, it will be Sunday morning.

 

Is it still OK to pick hostages? I'm keeping an eye on Dany Egreteau.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Just to clarify - am I correct in saying that for 2009 there will be no rule preventing a team choosing a candidate who is famous soley for being ill? All that this ill nobody will need is an obit from the media listed on the site?

 

That's right, for 2009 anyway.

 

I'll look at something easy to understand & 100% watertight for 2010, if I'm still running it then.

 

 

 

PS I hope to have the 2009 game "open" on Saturday night all being well, if not, it will be Sunday morning.

 

Is it still OK to pick hostages? I'm keeping an eye on Dany Egreteau.

 

Just as we think the Hornet's nest is calm, DDT goes and pokes it with a large stick!

 

When is an 'execution' an execution? When it is by a legitmate state? Or by insurgents?

 

Technically, I'd say it would be murder, if indeed it does happen, but over to arbiter OoO methinks....

[Octopus of Odstock 1,859]

Just as we think the Hornet's nest is calm, DDT goes and pokes it with a large stick!

 

When is an 'execution' an execution? When it is by a legitmate state? Or by insurgents?

 

Technically, I'd say it would be murder, if indeed it does happen, but over to arbiter OoO methinks....

 

TMIB, Why is DDT stirring?

 

DDT, firstly, yes.

 

TMIB, the rules are quite clear. When they are on death row & are executed, is when no points are awarded. It was in the email sent about a week or so ago.

 

It looks as if no-one has read it, so perhaps I need to include a large font when I include the entry form rules this weekend.

 

Besides, it has already happened with Tom Fox (dead) & Gilad Shalit (alive.. possibly). Picking hostages goes both ways though, of course - Norman Kember is still alive & well.

 

And yes, it would qualify for "unnatural causes".

 

 

Hostages aren't perhaps the most comfortable of picks to choose, but I have & will continue to allow them for the foreseeable future.

 

 

(And this is precisely WHY a rule, if brought in, has to be watertight. Do hostages come in for "famous for being ill etc"? But that's another debate, and one, that for now, has no relevance here).

[themaninblack 2,112]

Pardon me for breathing...

[Godot 148]

Pardon me for breathing...

Yes it was a little schoolmasterly, I thought. I expect that's what happens when they make 'em a mod.

[Octopus of Odstock 1,859]

TMIB, sorry but I am stressed. I thought that you were trying to answer for me and in my stressed mode, I felt that with this, I needed to answer first before people weighed in with their view.

 

However, I believe that most of my points, whilst perhaps harshly or bluntly put across, are fair & were clear in the rules.

 

If you & Godot had any idea about the sheer workload, time & effort the preparation setting up the new game takes & above all, the completely irritating, anal emails I am getting daily asking all manners of stupid questions which I directly tried to answer in the e-mail two weeks ago, I think you would be pretty frazzled too. It’s the unseen part of the DDP which is just thoroughly annoying & drove RK & SB up the wall too. It’s hard to believe such stupidity.

 

I have already, for example, banned one team from entering next year. They have entered their team for 2009. Not once, but THREE times. I have said to them, that I cannot accept it until the competition starts, for a number of processing reasons. They threw a wobbly & were rude, so I said to them “if you don’t read the rules, and play by them, then I can throw you out.” So I did – and that’s what I have been dealing with lately.

 

It’s getting to a stage where I start wondering is all this time, effort & criticism (not so much here, but I am getting e-mails saying “why haven’t you done this”, “why is the famous for being ill rule not in” etc etc) is worth it. That’ll pass come February, but it’s stress time now & increases the doubts.

 

Quite frankly, I don’t give a sh*t anymore who people pick.

 

I have tried to give sensible, well-thought answers into who is acceptable, who isn’t, what is acceptable & what not. I have tried to be democratic, but maybe Welshman is right, maybe I should be dicatatorial & hang the consequences. But I doubt it, because that’s not me, and also the DDP is not “mine”. I’m merely the custodian for a length of time – the DDP is everyone’s I feel, including Rude Kid, Siegfried Baboon & Big Iain, all of which have more “right” to the game than me. Maybe I’ve injected something into the game which is “mine” but I have never felt the DDP is “mine” like I do with my motorsport website.

 

Anyway, pick who you bloody like. Hostages, assisted suicides, terminally ill nobodies, 115 year olds, Patrick Swayze, Trudi Bloody Endersby, the entire cast of Hollyoaks, Ali Baba & the 40 thieves (would need two teams, I know….).. I don’t care.

 

If they’re over 18 & not already dead, they’re in.

 

Apologies again for the harshness TMIB, but as regards the moral rights & wrongs & who is a good pick and who isn’t… I don’t give a sh*t any more & I am fed up with debates on this about who is good & who isn’t – I’ve done that to death & said my bit. Maybe that’s for another thread, but until I have come up with a foolproof plan, then it’s virtually free-for-all for who you can pick.

 

I don't mind criticism, I don't mind debate, but out & out rudeness (again, not here, but on the e-mails) means an instant ban. That's why Tempus was banned from the DDP, although that is another story completely (but I can expand somewhere else) and relevant more to RK & SB. As he wasn't rude to me, he can re-enter, although I doubt he is still around to do so. And considering what got him banned, it's probably for the best.

 

But I was a bit snappy, and that's not me, so apologies TMIB.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Apologies (all 4000 of them!) accepted...

 

I should be a bit more considerate at this time. If I was doing the DDP, the prospect of inputting 500 or so entrants as well deciding what is right and what is wrong would have me reaching for the pearly revolver!

 

So a counter apology for being such an anal twat...

[Godot 148]

Er.... at the risk of being passed the anal twat baton (I can take it), does that mean executions are allowed again after all that good work of producing the world's most sensible, well thought out and expertly administered deadpool?

 

I agree wholeheartedly on the hostage rule. A hostage is always going to be a gamble. You could have persisted with Terry Waite for years and would still be twiddling your thumbs.

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

Er.... at the risk of being passed the anal twat baton (I can take it)

 

Godot, you mean, I bought your album because you were in this lot? Big respect!!

[Windsor 2,143]

With regard to the famous for being ill rule. you should set up a panel of say five people. If there are any controversial cases, the panel would then vote. If the majority approve, then the points are awarded. If the panel do not approve, then the points are not awarded.

 

I admit that this probably is not as watertight as you would have hoped, but it would take some of the pressure off of you as the sole decision maker. Then again, membership of such a panel would probably just be as controversial. Perhaps past winners, or past 'caretakers' could make up the ranks? It would also be beneficial to them if some agreed criteria on what a 'celebrity' acually is was agreed upon.

 

It is probably just as well there is a full year to sort this one out.

 

The case I was thinking on putting forward was that of 26 year old Tara Jones. She made the news this year when she was given months to live after hospitals failed to diagnose her skin cancer. Anyway, she is not really famous. She will probably be a big point scorer when BBC Wales give report her tragic death (leaving behind a husband and kids).

I have not yet decided if I will include her in my team. This is where the whole 'competition' rule come into play. At the minute she is not in my team, but that may change tomorrow. (I could be wrong about her obit chances, she could even be dead already).

 

I think that the above case would be easy for a panel to decide on. She is neither famous, nor a celebrity, thus the points would not be avoided. She is simply a 'civilian' who has been given a passing mention by the media. In my opinion hostages would also fall into the same category, unless they held some degree of fame before their lives were put in danger.

 

Just an idea for OoO to consider for next year...

[deadsox 891]

Well Ock, I for one appreciate your time and effort. The frustration of dealing with everyone must be grating but I did warn you that the whole "famous for being ill" question was a can of worms that would be hard to figure out and resolve to everyone's satisfaction. I'm happy you've gone with "over 18 and reported in the British press". It's nice and simple and won't require a gang of five to administer.

[Octopus of Odstock 1,859]

Er.... at the risk of being passed the anal twat baton (I can take it), does that mean executions are allowed again after all that good work of producing the world's most sensible, well thought out and expertly administered deadpool?

 

I agree wholeheartedly on the hostage rule. A hostage is always going to be a gamble. You could have persisted with Terry Waite for years and would still be twiddling your thumbs.

 

No, executions are still banned & will stay banned.

 

But people can still pick people on death row if they really want, but if they are executed, no points. If they cark it due to cancer or heart attack or any other cause other than execution, they get points.

[Octopus of Odstock 1,859]

With regard to the famous for being ill rule. you should set up a panel of say five people. If there are any controversial cases, the panel would then vote. If the majority approve, then the points are awarded. If the panel do not approve, then the points are not awarded.

 

I admit that this probably is not as watertight as you would have hoped, but it would take some of the pressure off of you as the sole decision maker. Then again, membership of such a panel would probably just be as controversial. Perhaps past winners, or past 'caretakers' could make up the ranks? It would also be beneficial to them if some agreed criteria on what a 'celebrity' acually is was agreed upon.

 

It is probably just as well there is a full year to sort this one out.

 

The case I was thinking on putting forward was that of 26 year old Tara Jones.

I think that the above case would be easy for a panel to decide on. She is neither famous, nor a celebrity, thus the points would not be avoided. She is simply a 'civilian' who has been given a passing mention by the media. In my opinion hostages would also fall into the same category, unless they held some degree of fame before their lives were put in danger.

 

Just an idea for OoO to consider for next year...

 

Cheers, Windsor, and apologies to all for having two posts in a row, but I wanted to put a separate reply to this.

 

That's a possibility, yes, and one which I will consider along the other ideas. My instant guesses of people who I'd choose is Rude Kid & Fallen Sparrow, and then probably one veteran of the old days, one former winner, and maybe one new entry, picked by random.

 

I do really want to sort this out but rather than make a snap decision, I'd rather get the whole 2009 processing & updating out of the way, and then I should have about 8 or 9 months to sort this out, hopefully as democratically as possible.

 

But I appreciate that Windsor & it's certainly one of the better ideas so far.

 

There is another option which is all players simply vote for what is allowed & what isn't & the majority view is taken. Then I could say everyone had their chance to vote & it would be clearer what would be allowed & what not.

 

PS TMIB, don't worry about it.