I like that there is one thread keeping track of celebrity deaths all year. It is a fine reference source. I am sure there are many non-players who read the thread just to get that information. I know I did for several years.
But maybe there could also be some “lesser” monthly or quarterly award winners announced in addition to the final annual big winner set.
I’d like the see the entry thread locked as soon as entries close, and a discussion thread run separately.
That’s a change I could support. Maybe even only have entries in the entry thread, and start the parallel discussion thread at the same time.
Two thoughts here:
I could go for that too, precisely because it would highlight the suckitude of the last half of the year relative to the first half.
If you had four quarterly awards, the winners of the first two quarters would have several deaths and a lot of points. The winners of the last two quarters would be the people who got lucky with one middling-to-large death.
For instance, in 2015, the winners of the first two quarters would have been Registered At Last with 4 corpses for 193 points, and yours truly with 3 corpses for 137 points, respectively. The third and fourth quarter winners would have been The Vorlon for picking Bobbi Kristina Brown, and pachabel for picking Scott Weiland, respectively.
There are good reasons that the second half of the year does poorly score-wise. The terminally ill picks tend to do what is expected sooner than later, and the cold winter months take their toll. I think that just makes the second half of the year more of a challenge. It is easier to guess who will be dying in the next six months than it is to guess who will be dying during a period six to twelve months from now.
And remember, there is a fine line between players who just get “lucky,” and those players with especially keen insight into the mysterious process of the dwindling existence of those of notable stature.
The reason why the DP thread stays in the Game Room instead of Thread Games is because it is kind of a hybrid thread. If you split up the thread into different components it may lead to them being placed in different forums. That will lead to confusion and fewer players.
There’d be an argument for that if threads were placed into different fora by (a) computer algorithms, or (b) moderators who didn’t give a shit. But neither of these is true, and if we went this route, I’m sure that the mods would have no problem with both threads staying in the same forum.
The fact that there are “good reasons that the second half of the year does poorly score-wise” doesn’t change the fact that the second half of the year is considerably less interesting than the first half. Ditto if it’s ‘more of a challenge’ to guess who will die in the second half of the year - which is something you’re not actually doing when you make your list in December, but be that as it may.
People play games because they’re fun. If one half of a game is consistently interesting, and the other half is consistently dull, it makes sense to see if it’s possible to redesign the game so that it works with just the interesting half.
And in this case, there’s no design challenge at all: you just play a six-month game. Problem solved.
Where are the current rules posted?
(I’m not a notable denizen of the Game Room. Maybe changing that can be my New Years Resolution. Or not. Never been a big fan of those. But still, where can I find the current rules?)
Okay, never mind. I found the rules in the November announcement of the 2016 game. which I’m apparently too late to join. So there goes that resolution. 
Anyway, for next year, I’d like to propose a change to Rule 1.), based on Rule 3.) d. Since our celebs can’t be under age 18 a time of death, let’s raise the scoring to 118 points, minus the age at death. This makes it possible for a player to score 100 points on a celeb, which should be a thing (what kind of a game has a max scoring event of 82 points? That strikes me as an oddly specific number).
kaylasdad99, you are too late but you can practise! Pick thirteen celebrities and keep track of them during the year, to see how you would have done. Then when next year’s game gets under way, you will be ready.
My proposed modification to the rules has to do with the Held-Hostage / On-Death-Row rules. I would combine those into one rule:
Picks who are held hostage or are on death row on January 1st are only valid if they die by means other than the actions of their captors.
Then anyone who is held hostage on Jan 1st and is released and subsequently dies would be valid (currently invalid)
Anyone held hostage by a lone wolf should have same restrictions (currently permitted as only hostages of terrorist organizations are excluded)
Anyone who is given a death sentence and immediately executed (or kidnapped and killed) within the year would be valid (currently debatable)
This rule does not require the Death Master to make a call about what is a terrorist organization.
If an attempt at rescuing hostages results in their death I would consider that to still be death due to action of captors regardless of whose gun the deadly bullet came from.
I would like players to be allowed to submit 2 lists: 1 regular and 1 thematic.
No shared players between your two lists, and two separate rankings.
Note to any interested parties:
Turn your safesearch ON if you’re going to look for DP on the net. Unless you’re into that sort of thing.
There needs to be a way to challenge (and resolve challenges to) picks revealed only in the closing minutes of the old year.
Quite reasonably, AFAIAC, some players want to keep their lists secret until the last minute, so that other players don’t get to piggyback on the research they did, and vulture their best picks. But it also means there’s no time to question whether their picks are legitimate celebrities before the game begins.
There needs to be an adequate opportunity for players to review each other’s picks, and challenge picks that they don’t think qualify as celebrities, or are only famous for being sick. There also has to be a point after which people’s lists can’t be challenged. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be the beginning of the new year. It’s not like that many picks are going to die right off the bat.
My suggestion would be to allow challenges through, say, the end of January 3.
I’d like to see a multiplier if you can predict the cause of death (disease, accident, suicide, murder),
The kerfluffle in posts 712-730 in the 2016 Death Pool thread has, IMHO, amply illustrated the need for a rule along these lines.
On further thought, I was actually thinking of doing away with a ranking in the score (like, putting them as 1… 2… 3… 4…) and just going like this, actually:
There’s one person with xxx points (lists poster)
There’s five people with xxx points (lists posters)
There’s seven people with xxx points (lists posters)
There’s fourteen people with xxx points (lists posters)
And having them in the order of most points to least points, starting from the top (of course). Does that work?
That would avoid
etc.
Hey, nice of you to show up in this thread for the first time in three months.
But it’s not a “wrong” way of scoring something, just a way that people are unused to or may not like. Scores can perfectly be tracked the way I suggest how I’m going to do it here, too. It does work. It’s not like I’m going to be scoring things incorrectly, it will still be clear who is in the lead and, roughly, what everyone’s score is,
As for not showing up in this thread for months:
I’ve been following along with it regularly, but haven’t felt the need to say anything (yet) to anything that has been said since my last reply. I’m still thinking on things and working things out as to how I’m going to deal with the issues presented and I want to get them worked out to myself, in my head, first before I make any sort of official announcement.
It’s still March. I have about eight months to go, so I figure I have a lot of time to let suggestions and recommendations and opinions continue to stew a bit before becoming more active as the time grows closer and closer.
I made this topic sort of like a “suggestion box”. You don’t have a person who works for the company standing outside of the box and replying to each paper put into it as they get collected. : p
Quoting myself from the current Death Pool thread where this debate started:
In the current death pool, there are 40 people with better scores than me right now, so it makes sense to say I’m in 41st place (tied with a whole bunch of others). It would be inaccurate to say I’m in ‘15th’ place. That implies there are only 14 people with better scores. Further, the person with the next lowest score has 67 people ranked ahead of them (there really are a lot of us in 41st place), so saying they are in ‘16th’ place is really misleading.
I also posted in the other thread that it’s not a big deal to me either way, since the stakes are so low. I’ll keep playing either way. Just pointing out that the way the rankings are currently done is the way I’ve always seen it done in ‘real’ competitions where the rankings actually matter.
ETA: Oops, I didn’t read your post carefully enough. It looks like you are offering a different method, instead of numerical ranks, just listing the scorers in order with ties listed together. That alleviates some of the problem, but it could be cumbersome when having to list a whole bunch of people who have the same score.
And your response to players’ dislike has been “my way or the highway.” That’s my point, not whether it’s right or wrong, smart or stupid.
ETA: It doesn’t exactly give one confidence about how you might respond to problems as they arose.
At this point, quite frankly, my suggestion is that someone else should run the game next year.
Hello excluded middle, and his old friend the strawman. Good to see you guys!
If I made suggestions at work, and months went by without a response, I’d assume they’d found their way into the circular file.