DDP 2018 Town Hall

[YoungWillz 19,046]

Removing the Mail as an obit source would certainly concentrate the minds of participants. In order to compensate, bring the Independent back. While it no longer does full obits, it certainly has news stories about the dead.

 

Edit: Rationale for this is that online postings rarely bear any resemblance to what is actually printed in the paper, but simply a cut and paste from AP, Reuters, etc etc. thus circumventing the whole point of a mention in a paper. Alternatively, insist that a Mail Obit be in an article, rather than solely in the Wires section.

[Joey Russ 7,119]

15 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Removing the Mail as an obit source would certainly concentrate the minds of participants. In order to compensate, bring the Independent back. While it no longer does full obits, it certainly has news stories about the dead.

 

Edit: Rationale for this is that online postings rarely bear any resemblance to what is actually printed in the paper, but simply a cut and paste from AP, Reuters, etc etc. thus circumventing the whole point of a mention in a paper. Alternatively, insist that a Mail Obit be in an article, rather than solely in the Wires section.

Mirror is the much bigger source for FFBI than the daily mail. If a source (as a whole) were to get removed, it's the mirror, not the mail...

[YoungWillz 19,046]

Just now, Joey Russ said:

Mirror is the much bigger source for FFBI than the daily mail. If a source (as a whole) were to get removed, it's the mirror, not the mail...

I mentioned nothing about FFBI types. That is not my intention with my suggestion.

 

FFBI types...well, it will be hell for the game runner to run...I had to exclude about 10 entries on the Poker Tourney! Up to the Spade to make a call on that one, although my views on those picks are well known.

[Joey Russ 7,119]

That does bring up the question: excluding FFBI, how many picks only source of obits were the Mail and didn't get another source, including the independent, in the last 2 years. I think there's a certain amount of picks that only got mail obits...

[YoungWillz 19,046]

Looking back over the past few round-ups, non-article obits in the Mail include Sonny West and Bill Dana.

 

Gary DeCarlo and Darren Daulton got article obits.

[msc 17,761]

Just putting myself on the record as being uneasy with the idea of yet more QO sources being axed.

[YoungWillz 19,046]

1 minute ago, msc said:

Just putting myself on the record as being uneasy with the idea of yet more QO sources being axed.

For the record, me too, but restricting Mail Obits to Articles makes sense. I'd still keep the Telegraph/Times death notices, they are published and are notifications of death and are "better" than passing references. Remember the guy that got a QO on the BBC by a caption on a picture?!!!!!!!!!!!

[msc 17,761]

Just now, YoungWillz said:

For the record, me too, but restricting Mail Obits to Articles makes sense. I'd still keep the Telegraph/Times death notices, they are published and are notifications of death and are "better" than passing references. Remember the guy that got a QO on the BBC by a caption on a picture?!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But... what that'd do is lower the Qualifying threshold for Americans but not FFBI types, or Australian A-listers (well, by Australian standards) but not cancer mums. The last cull kept the cancer mums but culled the number of eligible Scots, like we'd become independent already.

 

Although knowing that my FFBI definition is wildly at odds with others on the forum, and have no intention of opening that Pandora's Box again.

 

Andrew Millwall got a QO through a mention on Sky Sports New iirc. It's a loophole, but I applaud players who sneak in that way. And when one loophole is shut, another opens elsewhere.

 

If Spade (who is the boss after all) actually wants to reduce the number of X type of picks, he can make it a "please only pick X amount of these types of picks" rule. Rather than trying to eliminate the problem via eliminating the Qualifying obits, because you know, journalists play this game. They'll just shift the QOs to the QO sources...

[YoungWillz 19,046]

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...

[RadGuy 1,605]

Don't get rid of the Mail. 

If you do so, you'll greatly reduce the amount of eligible Americans (and to a lesser extent, Australians). 

 

However, YW doesn't have a bad point with the AP/Reuters copy/pastes.

If the Mail were to be removed for this reason, I'd say bring in the New York Times, or perhaps CNN. Something American. Maybe even something Australian, too.

 

But in general, I think the QO rules should stay the same.

 

I wouldn't extend them to BBC local, that could open the door for more FFBI. Speaking of which...

 

21 hours ago, gcreptile said:

What about a rule permitting each team to pick a maximum of three famous-for-being-ill types?

That ain't a bad idea, in theory. However, it would be hell for Spade having to sort through each team making sure there's no more than three.

 

And that would be the case too if we were to ban them all together. 

 

Not to mention the fact that different people have different definitions of FFBI.

 

I mean, Toast considered Joey Feek to be borderline FFBI.

While the more lenient folk like myself even put family of the famous (Tracy McGriffin, Jean Vorderman) in a different camp than FFBI.

 

Besides, FFBIs aren't even that good picks. Many don't obit, many don't die because the media exaggerates their condition. Choose them at your own risk.

 

And, lastly, the amount of FFBIs picks will decrease next year.

Shameless is retiring, opening up the Theme Team League for other hopefuls.

Spade will be hosting, so DSQP - which always has a couple of FFBIs - is retiring.

Joey said he'd limit himself to two FFBI picks next year, and I plan on doing the same.

There are starting to be more and more good picks from D-list celebs, rather than FFBIs.

 

In brief: don't ban cancer mums.

 

On 27.07.2017 at 18:46, The Mad Hatter said:

If we ban cancer moms then we'll have to deal with cancer dads or worse a cancer family.

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.

[Joey Russ 7,119]

4 minutes ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

Spade will be hosting, so DSQP - which always has a couple of FFBIs - is retiring.

Only temporarily. But still...

[Joey Russ 7,119]

Even so, I think that the amount of A-List celebrities who are announcing their illnesses are increasing as well. I can name two who will probably be on 95% of the contenders team if they make it to 2018, and another two that will probably be a 50/50 pick. Not to mention that it's only August, so there could easily be more to come...

[msc 17,761]

18 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

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

 

Apologies, I misread your intentions. It was "concentrating the minds" bit which suggested intent wss decreasing the types of pick available.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

If the Mail were to be removed for this reason, I'd say bring in the New York Times, or perhaps CNN. Something American. Maybe even something Australian, too.

 

I wouldn't extend them to BBC local, that could open the door for more FFBI. Speaking of which...

 

Not to mention the fact that different people have different definitions of FFBI.

 

I mean, Toast considered Joey Feek to be borderline FFBI.

While the more lenient folk like myself even put family of the famous (Tracy McGriffin, Jean Vorderman) in a different camp than FFBI.

 

 

And, lastly, the amount of FFBIs picks will decrease next year.

Shameless is retiring, opening up the Theme Team League for other hopefuls.

Spade will be hosting, so DSQP - which always has a couple of FFBIs - is retiring.

Joey said he'd limit himself to two FFBI picks next year, and I plan on doing the same.

There are starting to be more and more good picks from D-list celebs, rather than FFBIs.

 

In order

 

1. I'd much rather keep the Mail than add in CNN or the NYT.

 

2. No, silly, the BBC local pages should come back. Who doesn't want far more ex-Thistle players showing up with QO?

 

3. My rules for the Deathlist Cup were best. Known for anything before terminally ill, even if not widely known = ok. Although, Stephen Hawking is the perfect outlier for how some folk can become legit famous after the terribly ill bit. Also, FFBI is subjective term: one of my team last year was considered that, but I knew of her long before she was ill for her line of work!

 

4. This year is first year I've picked people I'd acept are FFBI. They both died. No obits. Lesson learned.

[msc 17,761]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

.I had to exclude about 10 entries on the Poker Tourney!

Oooh, any chance you'll say who?

 

The names, not who sent them in, of course.

[YoungWillz 19,046]

6 minutes ago, msc said:

Oooh, any chance you'll say who?

 

The names, not who sent them in, of course.

Connie Johnson springs to mind instantly...everybody wants her, everybody needs her, she's the most beautiful woman they know...

[msc 17,761]

Just now, YoungWillz said:

Connie Johnson springs to mind instantly...everybody wants her, everybody needs her, she's the most beautiful woman they know...

 

I'd never heard of Connie a year ago, but she must be famous with 700 QO articles about her ailing health...

[Joey Russ 7,119]

I did ask about an entry that wasn't Connie in the poker tournament, but my final list were all (somewhat) famous individuals...

[gcreptile 10,228]

26 minutes ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

That ain't a bad idea, in theory. However, it would be hell for Spade having to sort through each team making sure there's no more than three.

I would count only those who make it into the obituary vault, if the future host decides to keep it. So the FFBI picks will be defined by the host only, at the time of their write-up, that is long after they've been picked. Adds additional risk. And the number of three is enough so that, if one or two don't obit, you are not totally out of it, but almost. Could be very exciting...

[gcreptile 10,228]

4 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Connie Johnson springs to mind instantly...everybody wants her, everybody needs her, she's the most beautiful woman they know...

Though Johnson is ALSO a fringe person, being that her brother is one of Australia's most prominent actors (nationally, not internationally).

[YoungWillz 19,046]

1 minute ago, gcreptile said:

Though Johnson is ALSO a fringe person, being that her brother is one of Australia's most prominent actors (nationally, not internationally).

Nobody made that case, though again she would have been ruled out on the reflected glory rule....

[Joey Russ 7,119]

8 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

I would count only those who make it into the obituary vault, if the future host decides to keep it. So the FFBI picks will be defined by the host only, at the time of their write-up, that is long after they've been picked. Adds additional risk. And the number of three is enough so that, if one or two don't obit, you are not totally out of it, but almost. Could be very exciting...

I don't like part 3 of that, I think if they die and don't obit, they should still count as a death to add up...

[gcreptile 10,228]

1 minute ago, Joey Russ said:

I don't like part 3 of that, I think if they die and don't obit, they should still count as a death to add up...

Oh, I meant that you're out of the title race, not out of the competition. I want this one additional factor for the player: Is the benefit of a FFBI pick worth the risk of a non-obit? I like to see people go risky (Kobayashi, Perez...). And if one of your gambles doesn't work, you shouldn't be entirely out of it, if the rest of your picks is just so damn good.

Three FFBI picks allows you to go for one or two riskier names, in the hopes of getting a unique hit, but if doesn't work out, you should still be able to win with the other picks. If you'd allow only one FFBI pick, everyone would pick that 10/12-pointer that is sure of obiting (Lisa Magill & Mark Sims - though that turned out to be riskier than anticipated).

[Deathray 2,933]

Allow up to 20 teams each. Maximum of 10 normal and 10 theme.

[Joey Russ 7,119]

Just now, Deathray said:

Allow up to 20 teams each. Maximum of 10 normal and 10 theme.

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

[msc 17,761]

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