Deathrace 2018

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

2 hours ago, Grim Up North said:

As Mary picked Cas Willow he's got a tricky adjudication with a self interest.

 

i've got Cas Willow and I widely believed they were alive! 

 

Incidentally I didn't pick Ian Toothill because I presumed he was dead but simply hadn't received an obit anywhere so we wouldn't know. In that situation if a QO showed up and he had been dead for months would he still be eligible for a Hewlitt?

 

 

It is indeed a tricky one but I'm struggling to see the clear and present evidence of Willow's death that was available before midnight on 31 Dec.

 

The reality is she's a fairly big pick and there's a joker astride her inert frame. 20/20 hindsight available today is one thing but - seriously - the evidence she was widely assumed alive at the time the pool opened presents itself in the fact she's not been challenged until late today. I'm minded to invoke the Hewlitt memorial rule but openly asking ahead of time if anyone can find retrospective evidence (Twitter feed aside, cos that's easily missed). The rule is a person widely believed alive; and it looks like - as of midnight - she was. The rule is also that if a qualifying obit is subsequently proved to have existed before the competition started all points are voided. I'm leaving this for a day and awaiting evidence one of you might find; cos in ten minutes of searching I couldn't see it. Failing that the following people - myself included - get 366 or 732 pts

 

 

Cas Willow – dc, gu, jr, ms*, mp

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

4 hours ago, msc said:

@maryportfuncity, sorry to be awkward, but looking over the masterlist in the light of day, and you have Willie Nelson next to my name! Checking every name, I think it's easily fixed. When Erica Garner died, my joker changed to Cas Willow, and my first sub Ian Toothill moved into the Deathrace 20. I suspect someone else's Garner sub might have been Willie Nelson and there's been a mix up? Thanks.

 Sorted

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

Oh aye and...

 

WTF did Derek Dudley live; assuming someone was motivated to search the online editions of local papers?

[msc 18,397]

3 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

Oh aye and...

 

WTF did Derek Dudley live; assuming someone was motivated to search the online editions of local papers?

 

Seen nowt yet and the Birmingham Mail and Express and Star have both been covering his case extensively. Just tweets and one post (with no replies) on the Villa forum from 9.30pm last night.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

I can't even find evidence that Cas Willow has died.

[Death Impends 7,942]

1 minute ago, YoungWillz said:

I can't even find evidence that Cas Willow has died.

 

Dead Cow posted a tweet in the DDP 2018 thread. Will edit into here shortly

 

EDIT:

 

 

[msc 18,397]

Just now, YoungWillz said:

I can't even find evidence that Cas Willow has died.

 

One single cancer charity has tweeted it out, now I look on twitter.

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

OOOhhhh

 

We could be kicking off with some BIG scores; a 9-30 post on a forum - again - is not exactly hard evidence. On that basis we'd believe every reported death on Wikipedia

[YoungWillz 20,918]

So explain how a tweet is not evidence her death was known about, but it's enough to get the points? It's clearly pre-2018.

 

I'm confused.

[msc 18,397]

1 minute ago, YoungWillz said:

So explain how a tweet is not evidence her death was known about, but it's enough to get the points? It's clearly pre-2018.

 

I'm confused.

 

I think - someone correct me if I'm wrong - that the obscure tweet is believed to be true, but there is no way one single tweet followed by 4000 people (miniscule amount for a charity) would be spotted by anyone pre-deadline, so IF an actual confirmation comes out now, they're will be points. The tweet itself not being proof of death?

 

At least, I think that's it.

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

Just now, YoungWillz said:

So explain how a tweet is not evidence her death was known about, but it's enough to get the points? It's clearly pre-2018.

 

I'm confused.

 

Tweet isn't enough to get the points - we still need the q/o; though I think local press etc will oblige eventually so I'd say she's a shoo-in points wise once confirmed dead.

 

Hence the request about local press for Derek Dudley - cos he's a bit more marginal in q/o stakes IMHO

 

Dead Cow's post re Willow in the DDP 2018 thread was this afternoon and he was amongst those checking Twitter yesterday to see if she was still DDP fodder.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

1 minute ago, msc said:

 

I think - someone correct me if I'm wrong - that the obscure tweet is believed to be true, but there is no way one single tweet followed by 4000 people (miniscule amount for a charity) would be spotted by anyone pre-deadline, so IF an actual confirmation comes out now, they're will be points. The tweet itself not being proof of death?

 

At least, I think that's it.

 

1 minute ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

Tweet isn't enough to get the points - we still need the q/o; though I think local press etc will oblige eventually so I'd say she's a shoo-in points wise once confirmed dead.

 

Hence the request about local press for Derek Dudley - cos he's a bit more marginal in q/o stakes IMHO

 

Dead Cow's post re Willow in the DDP 2018 thread was this afternoon and he was amongst those checking Twitter yesterday to see if she was still DDP fodder.

I see....

 

Actually, I don't. Hey, if them's the rules, I gotta be cool, relax, get hip, etc etc...

[gcreptile 10,939]

She's dead. Check her wife's Facebook page.

I actually didn't pick her after all. In my opinion, "widely believed" requires a QO source.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

4 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

She's dead. Check her wife's Facebook page.

I actually didn't pick her after all. In my opinion, "widely believed" requires a QO source.

I'm not going to push the point, it's not my game. A tweet dated 31 December 2017 exists. It is available to everyone and every one of Twitter's users. Whether it is read or not by people is another matter.

 

That's why I'm confused. But I really don't care...

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

18 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

She's dead. Check her wife's Facebook page.

I actually didn't pick her after all. In my opinion, "widely believed" requires a QO source.

 

 

Aye, so let's get real on this one cos it's clearly a test of how this fast 'n' furious dead pool should operate. Reality checks thus far are that she was being entered (in the dead pool sense, obviously) by several people and she's been a feature of the DDP and HPDP as well as Deathrace. One Tweet aimed at the followers of a charity clearly didn't prompt widespread revisions or announcements hereabouts during the final minutes of 2017. So, as per the Hewlitt rule, she may well be one of ours and I'm studiously avoiding naming her in case we bring down ranter fire. Obviously, if there's some news source or similar from yesterday announcing the death and reporting the friends and family to be gutted, capable of saving the New Year whisky but resigned to throwing away the sausage rolls and vol au vents - then I'll take that on board and revise the masterlist. Still struggling to see it - mind. The obvious point about whether one charity Tweet amounts to a report from a specialist online site is certainly worth a debate but - seriously - there were dead poolers on her up to and including a time when she was already dead. Therefore widely believed alive as far as I can see, along with Derek Dudley. Loads of people were aware she was a potential pick and NOBODY hereabouts spotted the death evidence in 2017.

 

So - she was a fairly high profile case in her area; hence the widespread picking in dead pools. Meaning the q/o depends on what's explained below and you'd reasonably expect the local news sources - online edition of local paper etc. - to supply the evidence in due course.

 

9 - An "obit" in the context of the Deathrace is any news report in English from a reliable source. Such sources include - but are not limited to - UK national press, UK national broadcast organisations, foreign press and broadcast organisations with an English language thread to their communication, trade press in English, local news organisations reporting in English and coverage in specialist online sites, such as those monitoring the well-being of super-centenarians. Where dispute arises over the qualifying nature of a news source for obit purposes MPFC's decision is final. But he wants fast and furious competition and is generally very amenable to low hanging dead pool fruit of all varieties.

[gcreptile 10,939]

Will be Spade's first big decision. Are subs for Cas Willow actually coming into play? Derek Dudley is probably uncritical.

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

7 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

Will be Spade's first big decision. Are subs for Cas Willow actually coming into play? Derek Dudley is probably uncritical.

 

 

Uncritical - you mean; there's hope he can be revived!!!

 

It's the end for dead pooling as we know it if that happens.

 

Incidentally - who was he?

[msc 18,397]

4 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Uncritical - you mean; there's hope he can be revived!!!

 

It's the end for dead pooling as we know it if that happens.

 

Incidentally - who was he?

 

Dudley? He was a goalkeeper for Aston Villa in the 1980s, apparently. I'm assuming youth player who never actually made the first team, baring evidence to the contrary, but he was notable enough to get a lot of local press about his terminal liver failure aged only 47.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

13 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

Will be Spade's first big decision. Are subs for Cas Willow actually coming into play? Derek Dudley is probably uncritical.

I think that is clearer. The rules state the person must be alive on 1 January 2018.

 

I'm allowed to be confused, aren't I? I'm not questioning the ruling, just let me be baffled.

[gcreptile 10,939]

3 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

I think that is clearer. The rules state the person must be alive on 1 January 2018.

 

I'm allowed to be confused, aren't I? I'm not questioning the ruling, just let me be baffled.

I once picked someone for Shameless 1.0 who had already died a couple of days ago. There was a local QO I could have known. My sub didn't come into play. Also Diana Rots last year with only 16 people. TMIB didn't allow subs in these cases. Derek Dudley died on New Year's eve. So probably after the teams were submitted. And his death wasn't known until every team had been submitted. So the subs come into play. But Cas Willow is a different story.

 

Maybe I'm also unnecessarily confused but I wondered about these things before (like those Deathlist Cup picks who died on the 1st in Australian time but still 31st in UK time and the like.

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

I think that is clearer. The rules state the person must be alive on 1 January 2018.

 

I'm allowed to be confused, aren't I? I'm not questioning the ruling, just let me be baffled.

 

 

The contentious rule - in full - appears below. Basically, yeah alive on 1 Jan is what we want but we also don't want to penalise good faith picks. The current pair test this rule more than Hewlitt (who was newsworthy but also a paedo on the run deliberately lying low). Hewlitt's death and the eventual reporting of it were months apart. What we appear to have with yesterday's two deaths are people who were widely believed to be alive on 1 Jan (it's just that that widely held belief crashed and burned by the early afternoon today). Crucially every team entering them was submitted by midnight 30 December at which point they were both alive. So I'm not aware anyone cheated. I'm also conscious nobody has found an online source from yesterday that offers up q/o standard evidence of the reported deaths. I'm conscious this heated debate is exactly what's discussed at the bottom of the rule and - seriously - I'm up for a frank exchange of views; especially since I'm gonna benefit if we award Willow points so I can't just say it's a done deal and tell people to shut up. So far I'm seeing good faith picks, and the one report of the death prior to midnight coming from a charity Twitter feed none of us monitored.

 

Oh yeah, that rule:

 

 

11 - In honour of everybody's favourite Maddie-implicated paedo scum a candidate widely believed to be alive on 1 January and subsequently proven to have died previously will be awarded 366 points in the event that a Deathrace qualifying obit subsequently appears for said candidate. In the event that a Deathrace qualifying obit for the candidate is subsequently proven to have existed prior to commencement of the Deathrace all points will be voided. RHME points are only available during competition and in the event that a winner has been declared before discovery of a qualifyiing RHME candidate no revision of the final result will occur. Similarly, if some lucky candidate is awarded RHME points and these points are still in play at the time a winner is declared the points will not subsequently be voided and may - therefore - count towards a championship. All disputes relating to RHME will be resolved by the astute judgement of MPFC and there is no appeals procedure (though all sides of opionion are warmly invited to liven up the Deathrace thread by venting their fury).

 

[Youwanticewiththat 611]

O cock! I thought, rule notwithstanding, the clue was in the title Deathrace 2018.......

[Grim Up North 3,717]

My view - this year

All the Dead Pools have different rules and if you enter without reading them and carefully you probably won't win - for example I presumed (I'm an idiot) that Death Rowers were banned following last year but in actual fact rules have stayed the same so unless the three scheduled for January get Stays or Rescheduled then I'm not in with a chance.

 

The RH rule is part of the rules of this pool. If no-one on this site knew that Cas Willow or Derek Dudley were dead by midnight on 31/12/17 then I think it's fair to say it was not widely known. Hence points awarded. The rules can't be changed mid competition.

 

My view on the rule

It's just making life difficult for Mary unnecessarily - if you have died in 2017 then you don't make the start line for 2018, it could be that simple.

The fact that everyone (apart from Lardy) had entered by midnight on 30/12/17 means clearly nobody had cheated but imagine if, for example, Heef was the only person with a choice who had died on 30/12 and there was some random tweet in New Zealand about it. Then say death only became general public knowledge on 01/01. Clearly under the existing rule there is a possibility, as YW alludes to, of taking advantage. Unlikely but just unnecessary to have that loophole.

 

My view on the final ruling

Anyone who is prepared to run these pools for free for our amusement has my full support in any decision they make whether I agree with it or not.

[Youwanticewiththat 611]

32 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

My view - this year

All the Dead Pools have different rules and if you enter without reading them and carefully you probably won't win - for example I presumed (I'm an idiot) that Death Rowers were banned following last year but in actual fact rules have stayed the same so unless the three scheduled for January get Stays or Rescheduled then I'm not in with a chance.

 

The RH rule is part of the rules of this pool. If no-one on this site knew that Cas Willow or Derek Dudley were dead by midnight on 31/12/17 then I think it's fair to say it was not widely known. Hence points awarded. The rules can't be changed mid competition.

 

My view on the rule

It's just making life difficult for Mary unnecessarily - if you have died in 2017 then you don't make the start line for 2018, it could be that simple.

The fact that everyone (apart from Lardy) had entered by midnight on 30/12/17 means clearly nobody had cheated but imagine if, for example, Heef was the only person with a choice who had died on 30/12 and there was some random tweet in New Zealand about it. Then say death only became general public knowledge on 01/01. Clearly under the existing rule there is a possibility, as YW alludes to, of taking advantage. Unlikely but just unnecessary to have that loophole.

 

My view on the final ruling

Anyone who is prepared to run these pools for free for our amusement has my full support in any decision they make whether I agree with it or not.

Absolutely!  It is supposed to be fast 'n furious...

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

12 minutes ago, Youwanticewiththat said:

Absolutely!  It is supposed to be fast 'n furious...

 

 

Appreciate the thoughts above and I'm also appreciative of the appreciation that comes to those of us running dead pools; cos it ain't like a paid job. Speaking of which that paid job is demanding my attention today so I'll start looking for Q/O evidence for the two dead 'uns tonight; unless anyone wants to post links during the working day. 

 

Summat I'm also wondering assuming there was a Deathrace 2019; maybe we need to amend the Hewlitt rule to take into account the obvious chance that we have deaths between entry deadline and the start. In other words - exempt anyone snuffing it on New Years Eve who was always likely to get a q/o and only apply the Hewlitt rule to those - like Hewlitt - who die so far off the radar that the reporting takes ages. 

 

And finally 

 

We want 'em fast and furious and last minute death row mercy is always possible. This year those cases count and we'll have points accordingly assuming there are news reports. But...should 2019 rule them out?