I’ll be taking it over from Baker in hosting it starting next year.
I plan to pretty much keep all of the current rules as they have seemed to work just fine all this time.
However, I did see some mention of a few new rules that people might like to see (like in this post, for example).
Anyone else want to chime in with anything? You’ve got a whole year to do it.
Modify this rule
Instead of DQing poster, just do not award points for the Celebrity’s death he caused. All other picks should still be in play.
If I catch Pat Boone breaking into my home to rob, rape, and murder me, and I shot him with my crossbow, I am not a LEO , so I would be DQed, … just doesn’t seem right. I’ll give up the 18 or 19 points, since I could have shot him in his white penny loafers, and kept him at bay until help arrived,… but I still should be in the game.
I like the rule on the first one to pick a celeb.
A few years ago, I was the first to pick Harmon Killebrew (just a couple of days before the deadline). By the time the deadline, about a dozen other ghouls had picked Killebrew.
Maybe start new games twice a year? (No reason why they still can’t last a year; just overlap them.)
The reason I’m suggesting this is that the second half of the year tends to drag a bit. (In the 2015 pool, I think we’ve had just two deaths that affected the top 10 after June 15.) And obviously the problem isn’t that celebs prefer to die in the first half of the year, but rather that one’s picks either tend to be based on info that a celeb is imminently circling the drain (in which case they die early in the year), or that they’ve got, say, stage 4 cancer (which could mean they’ll die next year, or maybe hang in there for another few years).
So starting a new game every six months would make the second half of the year a bit more interesting for the players.
No to everything above. It’s fine the way it is. I’ve been in for 12 or so years and I guess I’m a curmudgeon.
If anything, start a separate game for themed lists, which might be fun. I’d join both with different lists. 2x the work, though.
I agree. I’d suggest a rule that says that the first person who named a celebrity gets an extra point if that person dies. I include myself among the people who wait until the last minute to post my list - if I have a sleeper I don’t want people jumping on him and I’ll also admit I check out the earlier posts for possibilities I missed (like Joey Feek this year). Giving a point for posting somebody first would give people an incentive to post early and reward people who are doing their own research rather than just copying other people’s lists.
My other suggestion would be having an extra spot for celebrity divorces. Name a married couple (only one of whom must be a celebrity) and if they announce they’re getting divorced in 2016, you score one point for every year they were married.
I disagree about the divorce thing. This is a death pool.
Though, Celebrity divorce pool might be an interesting thread all on its own.
While I like the idea of the first-to-pick bonus in principle, I think it opens up a can of worms from a practical perspective. Does the first person to post a list get the bonus for all their picks, even if it’s people like Jimmy Carter and GHW Bush that are well known to all of us? How about if it’s the first mention of that person in any Death Pool thread, but that person’s illness has been mentioned in a thread elsewhere on this board?
I think people who favor this idea need to spell out the details of how it would work.
Also, IMHO, it’s ‘fixing’ a problem (everybody jumping on bandwagons) that doesn’t appear to be that big. In 2015, only three corpses (Sam Simon, Stuart Scott, and Terry Pratchett) were on 10 or more lists, and only seven more were on 4 or more lists (Steve Byrnes, BB King, Leonard Nimoy, Dave Benton, Jules Bianchi, King Abdullah, and Ahmad Givens).
I like the celebrity divorce pool idea! (as a separate game, not part of Death Pool.)
Well, I’m still going to play, even if this is my last year as Death Mistress
I can’t really think of anything I’d care to see changed. I’ve seen several DP’s around the net, and they all pretty much have the same rules.
I did see one where if you had a celebrity over 100, not only did you get no points for their death, but you got negative points for how many years over 100 they were. But I don’t care for that.
That seems like a silly rule. It just means no one picks anyone over 100. Now you could have a rule that is you pick someone over 100 and they don’t die you lose 1 point for each year over 100. You might even go with 90 there.
No donations of organs to extend the lives of people on other player’s lists.
I would like to see some definition of “celebrity”. At the same time, I know that the additional burden that would create is probably too much - unless the person running this gets paid a lot more than I think they do.
I’d like to see the 24 hours to report deaths at the end of the year extended to 48 or 72 hours. Sometimes deaths aren’t reported right away, and even when they are, New Year’s Day can be a busy day with little time for checking one’s list for the year just ended one last time.
I think our assorted Death Mistresses and Masters have come to the conclusion, over the years, that a hard-and-fast definition is difficult, and that at the borderlines, judgment calls will be made.
I’ve already PM’d Baker about one person I wanted to include on my 2016 list that I thought was a borderline case - and if you’re not sure, that’s the appropriate first step! It keeps any potential drama out of the thread.
I have no problem with judgement calls or leaving it up to the Death Master to make the call. I would prefer if there were more judgement calls. Having people score high or win with a list of local barely celebrities is no fun. I self regulate myself and will only pick people I have heard of before I put them on the list.
Since the Death Pool is often a treasure trove of snark and dark humor I propose a Best Line of the Year award. It would have to be nominated by the members and maybe picked by the DM.
I agree it detracts from the game, but I’m not sure just how a DM would regulate this without having her/his hands full of judgment calls.
OK, maybe I have one idea: have a date (maybe 12/27 or 12/28) after which no new names can be added to the pool of names under consideration for the upcoming year.
During the remaining 3-4 days in the year, you can add names to your list that have been on other people’s lists for the coming year, or were on somebody’s list for the year now ending. And the DM can make judgment calls about some of the more dubious names on the list.
But for the last few days before the new year, we’d all be choosing our 13 names from the same larger pool of names, and would have the opportunity to question whether some of them should be eligible at all.
That’s somewhat kludgy, I’ll admit, but it’s the best I can think of right now. Maybe someone else can come up with a better idea.
A data point in support of this idea:
Assuming no last-minute additions, the 2015 players scored 6756 total points. 5982 of those points were scored due to deaths between 1/1 and 6/30; only 774 points resulted from deaths in the second half of the year.
Hell, maybe just do two 6-month Death Pools each year, rather than have them last a full year.
I support this.
(ETA: Or the DM would post a poll of the nominees)
And this. Would keep things more, uh, lively.
mmm