Dead Pool Ethics

[Toast 16,137]

I'm sure I remember a rule that banned people who were only famous for being ill. Was that the DDP, or somewhere else?

[time 8,599]

Those of you who had no qualms about picking Anne Willliams may now count your points.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Those of you who had no qualms about picking Anne Willliams may now count your points.

 

What, you'd deny points to any one who HAD qualms but still played her? Stewards enquiries on all major dead pools will surely commence immediately.

[time 8,599]

Those of you who had no qualms about picking Anne Willliams may now count your points.

 

What, you'd deny points to any one who HAD qualms but still played her? Stewards enquiries on all major dead pools will surely commence immediately.

 

I was assuming (dangerous I know) that those who did have qualms didn't pick her, but just to be even handed,

 

Those of you with qualms but who picked her anyway can also count your points.

[Going Underground 74]

So basically what you are saying is that those of us who picked her can count our points?

 

Is that not the name of the game.

[time 8,599]

So basically what you are saying is that those of us who picked her can count our points?

 

Is that not the name of the game.

 

Yes, basically that is what I'm saying. Well deduced!

 

No, the name of the game is Derby Dead Pool.

[Windsor 2,233]

I did have qualms before, but not since the death of Baroness Thatcher.

 

I've never had a party over anyone's death, and I certainly haven't protested at anyone's funeral. So compared to those fuckers last week, my ethics are comparatively impeccable.

[themaninblack 2,112]

I did have qualms before, but not since the death of Baroness Thatcher.

 

I've never had a party over anyone's death, and I certainly haven't protested at anyone's funeral. So compared to those fuckers last week, my ethics are comparatively impeccable.

 

So what Alex Salmond died then? You wouldn't exactly be choked, would you?

[Windsor 2,233]

I did have qualms before, but not since the death of Baroness Thatcher.

 

I've never had a party over anyone's death, and I certainly haven't protested at anyone's funeral. So compared to those fuckers last week, my ethics are comparatively impeccable.

 

So what Alex Salmond died then? You wouldn't exactly be choked, would you?

 

It is a well documented fact that I hate that man. But I can't ever see myself protesting at his funeral...

[themaninblack 2,112]

I did have qualms before, but not since the death of Baroness Thatcher.

 

I've never had a party over anyone's death, and I certainly haven't protested at anyone's funeral. So compared to those fuckers last week, my ethics are comparatively impeccable.

 

So what Alex Salmond died then? You wouldn't exactly be choked, would you?

 

It is a well documented fact that I hate that man. But I can't ever see myself protesting at his funeral...

 

We'll see about that post-2014 shall we? He may have played kissy kissy with the establishment when Thatch went but she may have contributed a fair few percentage points to independence you know...

[Handrejka 1,903]

I tend not to pick people who are only famous for being ill as I don't tend to find them particularly interesting. I've no moral problem with it, as Spade Cooley says, all we would be doing is utilising information already provided to us.

 

The only issue I have is with people, without prior fame/notoriety, who are in persistent vegetative states, have dementia of some sort, or who are children or with the mental age of children, basically people who aren't in a position to give consent about their health information. People like Margaret Thatcher or Ariel Sharon, yes, Bonnie Suchet or some random woman in a coma, no.

 

On a personal level, I know quite a few people who know Katherine Crowe ,and I quite fancy one of them, so excluded her just in case I eventually pull him as it would make for rather odd pillow talk.

 

 

WHAT!!!?

 

You can talk in bed as well?

 

Me and Mrs MPFC might give it a go. I'll keep yers posted!

 

Turns out he has a girlfriend.

[themaninblack 2,112]

I tend not to pick people who are only famous for being ill as I don't tend to find them particularly interesting. I've no moral problem with it, as Spade Cooley says, all we would be doing is utilising information already provided to us.

 

The only issue I have is with people, without prior fame/notoriety, who are in persistent vegetative states, have dementia of some sort, or who are children or with the mental age of children, basically people who aren't in a position to give consent about their health information. People like Margaret Thatcher or Ariel Sharon, yes, Bonnie Suchet or some random woman in a coma, no.

 

On a personal level, I know quite a few people who know Katherine Crowe ,and I quite fancy one of them, so excluded her just in case I eventually pull him as it would make for rather odd pillow talk.

 

 

WHAT!!!?

 

You can talk in bed as well?

 

Me and Mrs MPFC might give it a go. I'll keep yers posted!

 

Turns out he has a girlfriend.

 

I think Spade had a not-too-similar conundrum to you last year...

[Spade_Cooley 9,519]

Yeah, and I'm eternally in your debt TMIB for your fast response time on that one. Imagine being cockblocked by a deadpool.

[Bibliogryphon 9,573]

I still think that if taken in its purest form the Dead Pool picks should not be considered disrespectful. There are many people who I have the utmost respect for and would not wish them any ill but if they are likely to die in the near future then it is acceptable to say so.

 

Obviously this is not the Daily Mail view but at least we are not using the passing of significant persons to sell grubby newspapers (no matter how many times the word tribute is used).

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

I still think that if taken in its purest form the Dead Pool picks should not be considered disrespectful. There are many people who I have the utmost respect for and would not wish them any ill but if they are likely to die in the near future then it is acceptable to say so.

 

Obviously this is not the Daily Mail view but at least we are not using the passing of significant persons to sell grubby newspapers (no matter how many times the word tribute is used).

 

A VERY good point. Timely too, since I posted a link to massive DM coverage of the pretend wedding of terminally ill 23 year old Kayleigh Duff. Most of the other dailies either ignored it or gave it scant coverage. The DM have also taken a fair interest in right-to-die (and give us points) campaigner Paul Lamb.

[Guest Stormin1982]

To make Death List 2014 more challenging - we need to limit the number of potential candidates over the age of 90. The current number of candidates over the age of 90 on the list for 2013 is greater than 60%! The list should comprise of at least one individual in their 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's. The list should be expanded to include at least one male and one female in their 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 100's. The remaining list of 36 candidates should be be balanced. Having 15% under the age 59, 20% between 60-69, 20% between 70-79, 20% between 80-89 and 25% between 90-99.

 

The current list is not much of a challenge considering 32 of the 50 candidates are over 90 yrs of age and 43 of the 50 candidates are over the age of 80 yrs. of age.

 

Any comments are greatly appreciated

[RIP Wee Jum 1,559]

I don't agree. We are looking to increase the number of hits we get on the deathlist. The younger the person is, generally the healthier they are and they are more likely to survive longer. Or we do decide to limit the number of over 90's and the people on the list become more obscure and it becomes a list of people 10% of people have kind of heard of. I think we should hire a deathlist hitman to help the list along a bit.

[Toast 16,137]

To make Death List 2014 more challenging - we need to limit the number of potential candidates over the age of 90. The current number of candidates over the age of 90 on the list for 2013 is greater than 60%! The list should comprise of at least one individual in their 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's. The list should be expanded to include at least one male and one female in their 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 100's. The remaining list of 36 candidates should be be balanced. Having 15% under the age 59, 20% between 60-69, 20% between 70-79, 20% between 80-89 and 25% between 90-99.

 

The current list is not much of a challenge considering 32 of the 50 candidates are over 90 yrs of age and 43 of the 50 candidates are over the age of 80 yrs. of age.

 

Any comments are greatly appreciated

I don't agree. We are looking to increase the number of hits we get on the deathlist. The younger the person is, generally the healthier they are and they are more likely to survive longer. Or we do decide to limit the number of over 90's and the people on the list become more obscure and it becomes a list of people 10% of people have kind of heard of. I think we should hire a deathlist hitman to help the list along a bit.

 

Who is "we"? It doesn't include me, and I suspect it doesn't include either of you.

[time 8,599]

To make Death List 2014 more challenging - we need to limit the number of potential candidates over the age of 90. The current number of candidates over the age of 90 on the list for 2013 is greater than 60%! The list should comprise of at least one individual in their 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's. The list should be expanded to include at least one male and one female in their 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 100's. The remaining list of 36 candidates should be be balanced. Having 15% under the age 59, 20% between 60-69, 20% between 70-79, 20% between 80-89 and 25% between 90-99.

 

The current list is not much of a challenge considering 32 of the 50 candidates are over 90 yrs of age and 43 of the 50 candidates are over the age of 80 yrs. of age.

 

Any comments are greatly appreciated

 

You are at liberty to create your own site with your own list of celebrities and make it as 'challenging' as you want, with whatever spread of ages you want.

 

I'd guess the committee might even let you post a link to it here.

[Bibliogryphon 9,573]

To make Death List 2014 more challenging - we need to limit the number of potential candidates over the age of 90. The current number of candidates over the age of 90 on the list for 2013 is greater than 60%! The list should comprise of at least one individual in their 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's. The list should be expanded to include at least one male and one female in their 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 100's. The remaining list of 36 candidates should be be balanced. Having 15% under the age 59, 20% between 60-69, 20% between 70-79, 20% between 80-89 and 25% between 90-99.

 

The current list is not much of a challenge considering 32 of the 50 candidates are over 90 yrs of age and 43 of the 50 candidates are over the age of 80 yrs. of age.

 

Any comments are greatly appreciated

 

This argument does not carry much weight. Of the five hits we have had this year the only one who was over 90 was Patty Andrews and this was her third appearance on the list.

 

Just because someone is over 90 there is still a good chance that they will last out the next 12 months. If you are playing a game like the DDP then the age will determine the amount of points that you get for any hits.

 

I think this is a good list and there are plenty of opportunities to play in your own way.

[CaptainChorizo 1,977]

With that much low hanging fruit picked by the DL committee I think they are little unlucky none of the 90+ people have died yet.

[Predictor 1,018]

Hi all,

 

4 year veteran of the DDP, but first post here. I figured I'd join in because, well, where's the fun of keeping yourself to yourself?

 

Anyway whilst picking my DDP team this year I came up against an interesting ethical question. I actually came up against it last year as well, but kept quiet to see how it played out.

 

The question is...would you ever refuse to pick someone because, even though they're a legitimate pick, it feels wrong?

 

In my case, I know of a person who (a) had a high probability of dying last year, (b ) has an even higher probability of dying this year, ( c) would have been a unique pick last year, and probably this year as well, and (d) almost certainly will be mentioned in the national papers when they die. As an added sweetener, this person is under 40.

 

But I didn't pick them because I know the family of this person (though I've never met him/her). Just to make it clear, this family doesn't know I play in the DDP, and even if they did, they wouldn't know my team. So it's not a question of being found out.

 

Also, when I was drawing up my 2012 team, my brother was making suggestions, and independently he suggested this person as well (I'd already considered and rejected him/her). We both looked at each other and shook our heads. Extremely good pick...but no.. It just felt wrong.

 

Would you do the same? Where do you draw the line?

 

And no, I'm not telling you the name

Just out of curiousity, is this person still alive as we come towards the end of the year?

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

There are no right answers to the above on which everyone would be agreed. It really is down to individual conscience and whether or not you have the mobile phone number of any of Ariel Sharon's doctors, or summat.

[Deathray 2,940]

There are no right answers to the above on which everyone would be agreed. It really is down to individual conscience and whether or not you have the mobile phone number of any of Ariel Sharon's doctors, or summat.

 

I think accessing private data (i.e Ariel Sharon's doctors notes or terminally ill list at well known celeb hospital) not available to other competitors should be cheating. Not because your intruding on the celebs privacy but because it gives you an advantage other other entrants, a bit like murdering your celeb. If it's Robert Mugabe/Ian Brady murdering him could be morally sound depending on your outlook but killing him still gives you an advantage!

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

There are no right answers to the above on which everyone would be agreed. It really is down to individual conscience and whether or not you have the mobile phone number of any of Ariel Sharon's doctors, or summat.

 

I think accessing private data (i.e Ariel Sharon's doctors notes or terminally ill list at well known celeb hospital) not available to other competitors should be cheating. Not because your intruding on the celebs privacy but because it gives you an advantage other other entrants, a bit like murdering your celeb. If it's Robert Mugabe/Ian Brady murdering him could be morally sound depending on your outlook but killing him still gives you an advantage!

 

But what about if you just happened to be friends with a pick? That would also give you an advantage over other entrants, but it's not cheating. I think that it's just your lucky day if you happen across someone's medical records while making your list - that's what it's all about, isn't it, doing your research and using what you find.