Sean 6,348 Posted September 28, 2019 A remake of the old one which died out as rounds kept being triggered and it was just very messy and had no clear end date.I have a way of fixing it though by amending the objective and setting a clear finishing line. -Pick 50 names of famous people born in the 1950s. -First person who has a full 50 dead names wins. -Picks must have either a national or international BBC news article.The picks death must be the subject of the article not just mentioned within an article.To put it more simply no local regional BBC articles. -If a pick does not get the QO they can be replaced 6 months after they have been deceased -All entries must be PM'd to me or placed on this thread by 23:59 on Sunday 6th October 2019.The game will start at 00:00 Monday 7th October 2019 until we have a winner. -Once an entry has been submitted there can be no ammendments. Good Luck 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted September 28, 2019 Please submit up to five substitutes also. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 11,037 Posted September 28, 2019 That's a nice one. I will send something. BBC international...does that mean foreign language BBC sites like BBC India? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted September 28, 2019 Just now, gcreptile said: That's a nice one. I will send something. BBC international...does that mean foreign language BBC sites like BBC India? Yes they count. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,209 Posted September 28, 2019 So the BBC is the only accepted obit source? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted September 28, 2019 Yes.Purely for the fact that it will encourage people not to pick obscure picks.I wanted to encourage household names as opposed to the sibling and parents of Z list celebrities. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted September 28, 2019 Although the BBC has become more low brow of late. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theoldlady 2,336 Posted September 30, 2019 I have PMed my list to you. Thanks for doing this. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,614 Posted September 30, 2019 I have PM'd my list and then sent a second message with five subs in because I am clearly incapable of following simple instructions 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
En Passant 3,748 Posted September 30, 2019 I'm confused. You have to list 50 (and only 50) people with a maximum age of 69 (edit and obviously a minimum of 59), all famous enough to get a BBC obit and every single one of them must die before this is complete? I know I'm not much on research but that seems an extremely tall order. Clearly I'm missing something obvious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,209 Posted September 30, 2019 24 minutes ago, En Passant said: I'm confused. You have to list 50 (and only 50) people with a maximum age of 69 (edit and obviously a minimum of 59), all famous enough to get a BBC obit and every single one of them must die before this is complete? I know I'm not much on research but that seems an extremely tall order. Clearly I'm missing something obvious. Yes, considering one of the reasons given for abandoning the earlier game was "it had no clear end date", and given the very narrow obit requirement, 50 seems far too many. I realise it is intended to match the other pools (30 born in 1930s, 40 born in 1940s) but it's unrealistic to require more deaths when the picks are going to be increasingly younger. What next, 60 born in the 60s? 70 born in the 70s? See what I mean? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim Up North 3,766 Posted September 30, 2019 55 minutes ago, Toast said: Yes, considering one of the reasons given for abandoning the earlier game was "it had no clear end date", and given the very narrow obit requirement, 50 seems far too many. I realise it is intended to match the other pools (30 born in 1930s, 40 born in 1940s) but it's unrealistic to require more deaths when the picks are going to be increasingly younger. What next, 60 born in the 60s? 70 born in the 70s? See what I mean? I'll organise the Noughties game. 0/00 Lists required of zero people born in the noughties. Probably need to come up with a tiebreaker. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,614 Posted September 30, 2019 12 minutes ago, Grim Up North said: I'll organise the Noughties game. 0/00 Lists required of zero people born in the noughties. Probably need to come up with a tiebreaker. That will be a knockout tournament. Everyone picks 100 people born in the noughties and as soon as anyone on your list dies you are eliminated Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted September 30, 2019 5 hours ago, Toast said: Yes, considering one of the reasons given for abandoning the earlier game was "it had no clear end date", and given the very narrow obit requirement, 50 seems far too many. I realise it is intended to match the other pools (30 born in 1930s, 40 born in 1940s) but it's unrealistic to require more deaths when the picks are going to be increasingly younger. What next, 60 born in the 60s? 70 born in the 70s? See what I mean? If there is a 60/60 and 70/70 game it won't be me overseeing it.This is my last Deadpool in all likelihood.Certainly for a few years. It will last a few years at least but a fair few pools on here have lasted a fair few years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted October 1, 2019 3 entries in so far. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banana 859 Posted October 1, 2019 9 hours ago, Sean said: 3 entries in so far. Shocking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BuffaloPhil 946 Posted October 3, 2019 On 30/09/2019 at 11:50, Bibliogryphon said: I have PM'd my list and then sent a second message with five subs in because I am clearly incapable of following simple instructions I have done exactly the same, for the same reason. After reading this post, as well. Doh. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sean 6,348 Posted October 4, 2019 We are up to 5 entries now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Creep 7,071 Posted October 4, 2019 Lol half you people will predecease the game’s end. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msc 18,512 Posted October 4, 2019 The previous version of this went so weird and forgotten for long periods that no one - including me - noticed I'd predicted Bill Paxtons imminent demise in 2016. I really need to pay more attention to my public prognostications when it comes to putting together teams... as it is, they just produce unique hits for Gooseberry Crumble! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim Up North 3,766 Posted October 4, 2019 35 minutes ago, Sir Creep said: Lol half you people will predecease the game’s end. Maybe that's why it's called 50/50? 2 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Old Crem 3,621 Posted October 4, 2019 I am going to enter but I can't see anyone winning till 2030 or even 2040 onwards what with a high fame threshold meaning every list will surely be made up of some people with fair chances of making 90+. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gcreptile 11,037 Posted October 4, 2019 Okay, I sent something. Good luck everyone, see you in 10 years! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theoldlady 2,336 Posted October 4, 2019 3 hours ago, The Old Crem said: I am going to enter but I can't see anyone winning till 2030 or even 2040 onwards what with a high fame threshold meaning every list will surely be made up of some people with fair chances of making 90+. Oh crap! I will be 75 in 2030 and 85 in 2040. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim Up North 3,766 Posted October 4, 2019 1 minute ago, theoldlady said: Oh crap! I will be 75 in 2030 and 85 in 2040. Or, to take Sir Creep's point, dead. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
