DDP 2018 Town Hall

[The Mad Hatter 1,092]

1 hour ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

 

 

Funny you said that, I actually found a cancer family while researching a couple months ago.

 

But they only got regional US press, so extremely unlikely to obit, and I wouldn't pick them anyway. They'd take up too much space.

Did they go to Chernobyl for a family vacation?

[Deathray 2,940]

1 hour ago, msc said:

Helps to look at who posted a suggestion, to twig if the suggestion is a serious one or not, Joey!

 

It was serious.

1 hour ago, Joey Russ said:

Err, I'm sorry, but I really don't think that would be a good idea, as it could possibly break the server...

Wouldn't break the server if Spade dusted the flies off his wallet.

[Spade_Cooley 9,519]

30 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

It was serious.

Wouldn't break the server if Spade dusted the flies off his wallet.

 

[YoungWillz 21,037]

Since it was brought up here, we now have 3 contenders who have received death notices but no obvious obit as yet: Jagraj Singh, Edward Allcard and now Laurie Brokenshire.

 

 

[Sir Creep 7,070]

On 7/27/2017 at 10:35, msc said:

Do what you wish and ignore all the whining sods, I say.

 

That said, feel free to bring back the Scottish newspapers as QOs...

 

 

If your going to do that, then the Irish Times would have eliminated about 20% of the Lost members 2017.  Just sayin.
SC

[Spade_Cooley 9,519]

11 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

If your going to do that, then the Irish Times would have eliminated about 20% of the Lost members 2017.  Just sayin.
SC

 

26+6 = 1 m8

[Sir Creep 7,070]

On 8/8/2017 at 12:26, YoungWillz said:

Why does everybody think my suggestion is about reducing FFBI types? It isn't!

 

The wires section of the Mail is a back door entry. It only appears online and is never published (like the Independent) but hasn't been ruled out (like the Independent has for precisely this reason).

 

Aussie types deffo have the Guardian and the Times. As for Americans, well, hey if they aren't internationally famous enough for even an article in the Mail...

 

But hey, I'm leaving it out there...

The most basic retort is 'oh it's ok for a British cancer mum who could possibly obit, but an American cancer mum has no chance'.  I will state vociferously it is IMPOSSIBLE for an American to fully research local fare in the U.K.  It just is.  Just as it would be nearly impossible for you to discover the weatherman in Topeka, KS has stage 4 lymphoma (in a game using all American sources as QOs), it's the same vice versa.  How about an absurd rule if someone in the U.K. dies they must obit in the NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, or LA Times.  "Well, hey if they aren't internationally famous enough ...bloviating blah blah'.  It's a ridiculous comment.

As for the Lauren Hills of the world, no DP anywhere--but here--allows for people who aren't famous except for their illness.  I appluaded Shameless for mocking that oversight, and still do.  But with the conclusion of Shameless, just eliminate that loophole.
SC

 

[msc 18,439]

Even if that were true (and some of the best at spotting local UK fare have been Americans like DI, tbh)... them's the breaks. I've never heard of half the US celebs in the Rotten Dead Pool, but its a US pool and so it goes.

 

The DDP is a British deadpool, hence the Derby, and if its played by Scots, Americans, Italians, Germans, Australians now thanks to the power of the internet, its still essentially a small deadpool run by a scoutmaster and some schoolkids which got popular.

[Death Impends 7,964]

On 8/10/2017 at 19:43, YoungWillz said:

Since it was brought up here, we now have 3 contenders who have received death notices but no obvious obit as yet: Jagraj Singh, Edward Allcard and now Laurie Brokenshire.

 

Allcard now has proper obits in both Telegraph and Times, for the record. Took about a week after the death notice.

[YoungWillz 21,037]

I'm guessing Brokenshire won't be far behind....

[Death Impends 7,964]

Aye, be stunned if by the 20th we're still waiting for a full Times/Telegraph obit on him.

[Joey Russ 7,220]

Had an idea popped into my head yesterday that not necessarily related to the actual gameplay, but it's still something I want to mention because I think it's a really cool idea. 

You should know about the obituary vault where the shameless folk and your occasional Jagraj Singh's go in and have no obituary on them whatsoever (and if you don't, you've really been hiding under a rock). I am suggesting at potentially another vault, except instead of having no obituary, it'll have longer obituaries than the usual 2 to 3 sentences of the regular obituaries, but instead contains about 4 - 6 paragraphs for every obituary that is made. That way, people who may not have the time to look up those people who have a much more interesting story than what is being told about them in the two to 3 sentences written might be able to glimpse them and have a much better understanding of who they are. 

There are two small things I'd like to add to clear up some immediate confusion to the idea.

1. Just because they are in this new obituary type page doesn't mean that they can't have the 3 sentence obituary on the front page that they usually receive, it just allow some more in depth knowledge on people that are in the vault. 

2. It doesn't all have to be written by the host. This is where I think the cool part of the idea is. This new vault could have obituaries written by any participant of the DDP that wants to make a contribution to the DDP, so members who want to help with the DDP all year actually have something to do other than comment on mistakes that were made or stuff like that... 

Of course, this is only idea, and ask questions if you want anything cleared up, but I think it's cool enough to have a mention anyways...

[Death Impends 7,964]

You could just click the QOs linked to on the front page if you want to read more about the person, no?

[Joey Russ 7,220]

True. But I feel like the writer might be able to make their own personal take on the person and on why they think that they're cool or why they are important to them. Something that you don't really see on the mainstream obituaries a lot...

[marinade 18]

Hello.

 

I'd swap the bonuses for Unique Pick and Party Pooper. I always feel the former deserves greater reward and the latter less (or to be honest, IMO, none).

 

Also, under each team's years in DDP and best position, maybe have their high score?

 

Thanks.

[RadGuy 1,614]

Maybe, instead of swapping them, the Party Pooper bonus just gets brought down to 3 points?

I don't think anything on the DDP, whether luck-based (somebody dying on Christmas/their birthday), or hard-work based (nabbing a unique), is worthy of a 5 point bonus.

 

Another thing that ought to be considering is getting rid of the Drop 40.

First of all, it's making scores ridiculously high. For example, Golden Slumbers is 4 hits away from DQSP's winning total last year, but only 16 points away. Also, there's already 13 teams with over 100 points, many of whom aren't even in the double-digits hit-wise.

It also reduces the quality of teams, because people are now more concerned about picking popular people who are risky, rather than rare picks that are dead-certs. 

Another reason is that it gives popular picks like Glen Campbell and Leah Bracknell, that require no research, more value than younger, rarer picks.

It doesn't even deter people from picking cancer mums, in fact, way more cancer mums were picked by contenders this year than ever before.

[msc 18,439]

11 minutes ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

 

Another thing that ought to be considering is getting rid of the Drop 40.

First of all, it's making scores ridiculously high. For example, Golden Slumbers is 4 hits away from DQSP's winning total last year, but only 16 points away. Also, there's already 13 teams with over 100 points, many of whom aren't even in the double-digits hit-wise.

 

So?

 

Used to be you could win the DDP with 20 points.

 

 

 

Quote

It also reduces the quality of teams, because people are now more concerned about picking popular people who are risky, rather than rare picks that are dead-certs. 

 

Are they?

 

And if the people are picking more popular (and thus more famous by default) people, how is that reducing the quality of the teams? You just said they were all gaining more points.

 

 

Quote

Another reason is that it gives popular picks like Glen Campbell and Leah Bracknell, that require no research, more value than younger, rarer picks.

 

That's a reason in favour of it, imo.

 

 

Quote

It doesn't even deter people from picking cancer mums, in fact, way more cancer mums were picked by contenders this year than ever before.

 

Got to give it a year or two to see how that adjusts. Its clear that a fair few folk (hi) didn't quite twig how the Drop 40 bonus would trigger certain picks.

 

 

[YoungWillz 21,037]

Yikes.

 

I'd say nobodies with cancer reduce the quality of a team right off the bat.

 

The Drop 40 didn't even enter my head when selecting my team. Additionally, popular picks don't always equate to popular deceased, however they are more likely to obit.

 

Depends how you view the competition. Is it:

 

1. Win by selecting carefully chosen celebrities that no-one else might have picked?

2. Win by selecting the picks that everyone else might pick, thus gaining the likelihood of drawing most of your competitors' picks?

3. Win at all costs, how dare other people get lucky with their selections?

4. Take part and mourn/cheer as appropriate the selections you make?

 

Not everyone's in it to win. But it's a bit rich for the more successful participants to want rule changes that actually make it more difficult for others to win, just because they "do a lot of hard work" with their picks.

[RadGuy 1,614]

Just now, msc said:

So?

 

Used to be you could win the DDP with 20 points.

Okay, true that was just me being a stubborn person who dislikes change.

 

1 minute ago, msc said:

Are they?

 

And if the people are picking more popular (and thus more famous by default) people, how is that reducing the quality of the teams? You just said they were all gaining more points.

Perhaps I was exaggerating, but I do feel like less people would have gone with Gilberts, Meads, Ricketts, Stefansson types if it weren't for the fact that they were worth so many points (Gilbert and Ricketts failing to make the Drop 40 anyway).

 

5 minutes ago, msc said:

That's a reason in favour of it, imo.

The amount of hard-work and research put into those picks is nill. Therefore, they shouldn't be rewarded. It makes perfect sense to me.

 

6 minutes ago, msc said:

Got to give it a year or two to see how that adjusts. Its clear that a fair few folk (hi) didn't quite twig how the Drop 40 bonus would trigger certain picks.

It's true that people didn't really know what to expect.

But it's not like it matters. I mean, most cancers mum are worth 10-12 points even without a unique. The Drop 40 doesn't deter you from picking those people anyway.

[RadGuy 1,614]

2 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Not everyone's in it to win. But it's a bit rich for the more successful participants to want rule changes that actually make it more difficult for others to win, just because they "do a lot of hard work" with their picks.

Of course not everyone's in it to win. But if you don't care about winning, and aren't willing to put in the research required to win, then why should you be rewarded?

[msc 18,439]

6 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

The Drop 40 didn't even enter my head when selecting my team. Additionally, popular picks don't always equate to popular deceased, however they are more likely to obit.

 

Depends how you view the competition. Is it:

 

1. Win by selecting carefully chosen celebrities that no-one else might have picked?

2. Win by selecting the picks that everyone else might pick, thus gaining the likelihood of drawing most of your competitors' picks?

3. Win at all costs, how dare other people get lucky with their selections?

4. Take part and mourn/cheer as appropriate the selections you make?

 

Not everyone's in it to win. But it's a bit rich for the more successful participants to want rule changes that actually make it more difficult for others to win, just because they "do a lot of hard work" with their picks.

 

I did wonder who'd be on the Drop 40, but... man, was my finger not on the pulse of the DDP!

 

As for those, 3 is destined to grumpiness when taking on Spade.

[YoungWillz 21,037]

Just now, Phantom of the Midway said:

Of course not everyone's in it to win. But if you don't care about winning, and aren't willing to put in the research required to win, then why should you be rewarded?

Because cancer nobodies are disproportionately rewarded for having no celebrity status whatsoever.

 

"Look, I found this 18 year old dame who will definitely die this year! She's from Huddersfield and has two kids and once had her picture taken with Wayne Rooney! Mirror Obit guaranteed!"

 

Why you should be rewarded for that type of pick escapes me.

[RadGuy 1,614]

1 minute ago, YoungWillz said:

Because cancer nobodies are disproportionately rewarded for having no celebrity status whatsoever.

 

"Look, I found this 18 year old dame who will definitely die this year! She's from Huddersfield and has two kids and once had her picture taken with Wayne Rooney! Mirror Obit guaranteed!"

 

Why you should be rewarded for that type of pick escapes me.

But you're not exactly rewarded for them... it's not like there's a 3-point cancer mum bonus.

 

And, yes, I'm pretty sure most of us agree cancer mums should be banned. But if you want people to not pick cancer mums, then ban cancer mums! Don't try to counteract it with some kind of Drop 40 bonus that doesn't even help that issue.

[msc 18,439]

Those who actually research to death are about 15 teams out of 500, if that. And that's vastly overestimating the research, no doubt.

 

Rules shouldn't be changed to suit 15/500.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

3 minutes ago, msc said:

Those who actually research to death are about 15 teams out of 500, if that. And that's vastly overestimating the research, no doubt.

 

Rules shouldn't be changed to suit 15/500.

 

Aye, cue the intervention from @RobertMugabe who'd liken that situation to pre-revolutionary Zimbabwe