# 2018 Death Pool: Discussion about Rules Changes **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Tags:** death-pool\ **Created:** [November 11, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328 "2017-11-11T15:20:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/21 "2017-11-12T14:07:26Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think we need a discussion about whether college and high school athletes are automatically celebs. ( **carnivorousplant** ’s example of Jaquis Dancy, a football player of no particular distinction on a college team of little note, other than to its fans, brings that to mind.) > > My take is that there are thousands of college sports teams in any major sport, and way more high school teams than college teams. So unless a player is well known outside of a given school’s fandom, I wouldn’t call them a celeb. I agree that defining what constitutes being a “celebrity” is slippery slope, as we have had many politicians, mayors, weathermen, etc from small towns or local municipalities successfully “pass muster”. That said, I do not think merely being an athlete on an NCAA team is sufficient. In the past a Div III women’s basketball player was disqualified as her only “real” fame was her illness. The requirement in the rules of "“the person has some known presence in the form of a Wikipedia Page and/or notoriety in the news or such” should be amended to: **(NOTE: Possible Amendment To Rules)** “…the person has some known presence in to justify their ‘celebrity status’ such as notoriety in the news or media. A lone Wikipedia Page in the absence of any publicity, statements, media, etc, is not sufficient. If questioned, the person who posted that individual may provide such evidence.” ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/22 "2017-11-12T14:13:25Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve made this suggestion before. I think it’s a good idea but it would put extra work on the person running the thread. > > **The first person to suggest a celebrity gets one extra bonus point if they die.** > > The reason I like this is because it encourages people to go out and find their own picks rather than jump on bandwagon picks. I’ve noticed that most years you’ll see several obscure celebrities get named and then, as people google the name, they’ll appear in a string of other entries. > > We also get a flood of people waiting until December 31 to post their entries. This would encourage people to post earlier. Not sure how I could code the “extra point” for picking first, and also not sure it would be worth it… for someone age 90, a point represents a 10% increase, but for someone age 50, only 2%. I think it would be easy to create a list of first picks though, so this could be another category/award. > [@SpoilerVirgin](#): > > I would prefer any themed list game to take place in a separate thread, so as not to further complicate the primary death pool. Would listing themed lists with an asterisk\* (in the same list as non-themed lists) be sufficient, as it is current practice? While no person can list the same individual on BOTH a themed and regular list, many celebrities would be on both types of lists. Managing two threads/score ranking would be awful. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/23 "2017-11-12T19:34:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think we need a discussion about whether college and high school athletes are automatically celebs. ( **carnivorousplant** ’s example of Jaquis Dancy, a football player of no particular distinction on a college team of little note, other than to its fans, brings that to mind.) > > My take is that there are thousands of college sports teams in any major sport, and way more high school teams than college teams. So unless a player is well known outside of a given school’s fandom, I wouldn’t call them a celeb. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Would that be satisfied by a Wikipedia article? > [@phungi](#): > > I agree that defining what constitutes being a “celebrity” is slippery slope, as we have had many politicians, mayors, weathermen, etc from small towns or local municipalities successfully “pass muster”. > > That said, I do not think merely being an athlete on an NCAA team is sufficient. In the past a Div III women’s basketball player was disqualified as her only “real” fame was her illness. > > The requirement in the rules of "“the person has some known presence in the form of a Wikipedia Page and/or notoriety in the news or such” should be amended to: > > **(NOTE: Possible Amendment To Rules)** > > “…the person has some known presence in to justify their ‘celebrity status’ such as notoriety in the news or media. A lone Wikipedia Page in the absence of any publicity, statements, media, etc, is not sufficient. If questioned, the person who posted that individual may provide such evidence.” I have to say that I do not think a wikipedia entry is enough. There are thousands and thousands of people with wikipedia pages who are not famous, or even infamous. Also, anyone can create a wikipedia page for anyone; it’s not like there’s a high bar anyone has to climb over first. And I think there’s a distinction between “locally or regionally well-known” and “famous”. Many athletes, for example, are the former; few are the latter, even at the professional level. TL; DR: With this possible amendment, I think the 2018 rules sound fantastic. It prolly won’t help me pick my first dead celebrity (I’ve never scored a single point in this game, AFAIR), tho. ETA: :smack: \ I think I know how I can start scoring some points! I can’t wait for 2018! ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/24 "2017-11-12T20:47:03Z")
You did read rule #6 above, right, **Bo**? ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/25 "2017-11-12T20:51:47Z")
> [@phungi](#): > > Would listing themed lists with an asterisk\* (in the same list as non-themed lists) be sufficient, as it is current practice? While no person can list the same individual on BOTH a themed and regular list, many celebrities would be on both types of lists. Managing two threads/score ranking would be awful. No, that’s exactly what I was hoping to avoid, something where everyone would be playing two separate lists, and we’d all have two separate sets of points, and when someone died, you’d have to figure out whether that person was on someone else’s regular list (in which case they drop you down or whatever) or on someone’s themed list (in which case, they might not drop you, because you were in a different position in the themed competition). But I’m just one player, and if everyone else is fine with it, I’ll still play. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/26 "2017-11-12T20:55:56Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > You did read rule #6 above, right, **Bo**? Of course; what do I look like, some kind of audio guy? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/27 "2017-11-12T20:56:42Z")
> [@SpoilerVirgin](#): > > No, that’s exactly what I was hoping to avoid, something where everyone would be playing two separate lists, and we’d all have two separate sets of points, and when someone died, you’d have to figure out whether that person was on someone else’s regular list (in which case they drop you down or whatever) or on someone’s themed list (in which case, they might not drop you, because you were in a different position in the themed competition). But I’m just one player, and if everyone else is fine with it, I’ll still play. Not sure how it would be difficult to follow, as the Scorekeeper I use ranks people by points. Also, I am not sure all that many people would be playing 2 lists. That said, I could have two separate Scorekepes, one for each “game” rather than inter-mingling rankings. The problem is that when a celeb dies, it might create more work, as they could be on both sets of lists. ---
**Author:** ![Allecher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@Allecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Allecher)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/28 "2017-11-12T21:00:40Z")
I like the idea of having two lists, and would probably give it a try myself. However I would prefer to see only one thread to handle both scoring types. It would get very confusing to follow two different threads, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Registered\_at\_Last](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Registered\_at\_Last](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Registered_at_Last)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2017, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/29 "2017-11-14T21:08:37Z")
I have a couple of thoughts … First on the topic of what is famous. I will note that many non-american famous people do not have a Wikipedia pages. As a Canadian I always try to include a few fellow Canadians, and even though they are famous here (and are front page news when they die) they don’t always have a page. So I am ok with the rule as written but don’t want Wikipedia to be the sole arbiter of fame. I would say that if a national news organization reports the death (ie CBC in Canada, BBC in the UK, etc) then they are probably famous enough regardless of whether they have a wiki page. I also have some problems with the mechanics of 3F and 5 and feel they could be combined into one rule that doesn’t require the DeathShroom to make a political decision about what is or is not a terrorist organization: From the original (sorry I didn’t do tagging correctly) 3. Valid picks CANNOT be: f. hostages held by terrorist organizations 1. Prisoners held on death row count only if they die by means other than official execution. I would combine that into : Those who are hostages or prisoners on January 1st only count if they die by means other than the actions of their captors (actions include but are not limited to death due to torture, intentional exectution, or death during a rescue attempt) Then someone who is captured, convicted and summarily executed within the calendar year would count (eg Saddam Hussein) and a hostage on Jan 1st who then dies after release of more natural causes would count. I would make no distinction between “hostage held by terrorists” and “prisoner held on death row” since in some cases that is a political distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/30 "2017-11-15T05:24:06Z")
So why only three alternates? It seems a rather arbitrary number. ---
**Author:** ![Lancia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lancia/32/17174_2.png) [@Lancia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lancia)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/31 "2017-11-15T14:55:35Z")
So forgive me for a request for clarification. Perhaps it’s because I haven’t had my covfefe yet or maybe I’m just a dumbass, but I’m confused by this “separate lists” business. > [@phungi](#): > > [ul] > [li]All Dopers may submit two separate lists: a “Normal” list, and a “Themed” list[/li][LIST=A] > [li]No celebrity can be in both of the lists submitted by a single player[/li][li]The Themed List must have a name different than the 'Doper’s SDMB profile name[/li][li]There will be a separate “award” for “Highest Ranked Themed List”, but In the unlikely event that a Themed List has the most total points, the 'Doper could win the “Quality Award” as well.[/li][/ul][/LIST] So for A: does this mean we submit two separate lists and both are played in the game? For instance my regular list could have 13 random old / ill / hated celebrities that I predict will die. List B will be my themed list, a list of celebrities whose first name is Dick (or whatever the theme is). If both lists are played this gives me 26 possible wins, not 13. I can’t imagine this is the intent, but that’s how I’m reading this. B. Please explain. I’m chalking this one up to a lack of caffeine, but I read this is as we’re to create a sock to submit our second list. This clearly isn’t what’s meant so can someone clarify? Is it simply a matter of giving out lists titles so the Death Shroom knows which list it came from? For instance I would submit “Lancia’s normal boring list” and the themed list would be “Lancia’s super creative themed list” or something? If we can’t put a celebrity on more than one list (again, giving us 26 choices), then what’s the point? Help an idiot out. ::goes and makes a pot of coffee:: ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/32 "2017-11-15T15:29:53Z")
> [@Lancia](#): > > So forgive me for a request for clarification. Perhaps it’s because I haven’t had my covfefe yet or maybe I’m just a dumbass, but I’m confused by this “separate lists” business. > > So for A: does this mean we submit two separate lists and both are played in the game? For instance my regular list could have 13 random old / ill / hated celebrities that I predict will die. List B will be my themed list, a list of celebrities whose first name is Dick (or whatever the theme is). If both lists are played this gives me 26 possible wins, not 13. I can’t imagine this is the intent, but that’s how I’m reading this. > > B. Please explain. I’m chalking this one up to a lack of caffeine, but I read this is as we’re to create a sock to submit our second list. This clearly isn’t what’s meant so can someone clarify? Is it simply a matter of giving out lists titles so the Death Shroom knows which list it came from? For instance I would submit “Lancia’s normal boring list” and the themed list would be “Lancia’s super creative themed list” or something? If we can’t put a celebrity on more than one list (again, giving us 26 choices), then what’s the point? > > Help an idiot out. > > ::goes and makes a pot of coffee:: The idea is you can play a “regular list” and a “themed list”. Each list has 13 different picks, and you are ranked separately. This idea was tossed around by a few people over the years. While you would, technically, have 26 picks, the “themed” list is less likely to score points, as demonstrated by the fact that themed lists do not win the pool. It may be a silly idea, but thought it was worth tossing out there. ---
**Author:** ![Lancia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lancia/32/17174_2.png) [@Lancia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lancia)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/33 "2017-11-15T15:55:29Z")
> [@phungi](#): > > The idea is you can play a “regular list” and a “themed list”. Each list has 13 different picks, and you are ranked separately. This idea was tossed around by a few people over the years. > > While you would, technically, have 26 picks, the “themed” list is less likely to score points, as demonstrated by the fact that themed lists do not win the pool. > > It may be a silly idea, but thought it was worth tossing out there. I don’t think it’s a bad idea, although personally part of the allure of this game is to try to whittle my list down to 13 names. For 2017 I picked celebrities that were sick or old or dying since it was my first time playing and I wanted to end the year with at least one or two wins. For 2018 I want to get more creative and am already working on the theme, which is a bit difficult as there are numerous names I can put on it—whittling it down is part of the fun. Of course, having the ability to submit two lists doesn’t mean we have to. So I’m fine either way. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/34 "2017-11-15T15:57:05Z")
Not a big fan of themed lists. If the rule change does pass, I would suggest that the themed lists be run as a separate thread. 2018 Death Pool (Themed), or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/35 "2017-11-15T16:32:30Z")
> [@Lancia](#): > > B. Please explain. I’m chalking this one up to a lack of caffeine, but I read this is as we’re to create a sock to submit our second list. This clearly isn’t what’s meant so can someone clarify? Is it simply a matter of giving out lists titles so the Death Shroom knows which list it came from? For instance I would submit “Lancia’s normal boring list” and the themed list would be “Lancia’s super creative themed list” or something? If we can’t put a celebrity on more than one list (again, giving us 26 choices), then what’s the point? > > Help an idiot out. > > ::goes and makes a pot of coffee:: Separate Names would be for tracking points. However, a separate thread would solve the problem. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/36 "2017-11-15T21:18:17Z")
Are two-player teams permitted? I’m much too ignorant and inept to have a winning chance alone, but two of us weaklings might pull vicotry off! 🙂 > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve made this suggestion before. I think it’s a good idea but it would put extra work on the person running the thread. > > **The first person to suggest a celebrity gets one extra bonus point if they die.** > > The reason I like this is because it encourages people to go out and find their own picks rather than jump on bandwagon picks. I’ve noticed that most years you’ll see several obscure celebrities get named and then, as people google the name, they’ll appear in a string of other entries. > > We also get a flood of people waiting until December 31 to post their entries. This would encourage people to post earlier. I like this suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/37 "2017-11-16T05:48:07Z")
My lists the last few years have been themed. I very strongly dislike the idea of it being a separate game/thread. I know I am unlikely to win, but that is my choice. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/38 "2017-11-16T10:03:30Z")
To eliminate the problem of people “jumping on the bandwagon” and copying other people’s submissions (and as a consequence, the posting of so many submissions late on December 31st) why not have the submissions made privately via PM? This has probably been suggested before but I have never participated in a death pool so I’m not up on this stuff. ---
**Author:** ![phungi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/phungi/32/395_2.png) [@phungi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phungi)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/39 "2017-11-16T13:07:56Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > To eliminate the problem of people “jumping on the bandwagon” and copying other people’s submissions (and as a consequence, the posting of so many submissions late on December 31st) why not have the submissions made privately via PM? > > This has probably been suggested before but I have never participated in a death pool so I’m not up on this stuff. I like this idea, and will include it as an option for 2018: Submit your list via Private Message ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328/40 "2017-11-16T15:00:30Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > My lists the last few years have been themed. I very strongly dislike the idea of it being a separate game/thread. I know I am unlikely to win, but that is my choice. You could just continue to submit your themed list to the regular contest. > [@phungi](#): > > I like this idea, and will include it as an option for 2018: Submit your list via Private Message I am willing to create a Google Form that would manage this even easier for the person in charge of the Death Pool. I could set it up, I think, to not collect email or any private information(no email collection or anything). People could submit their username and their list of 13 names. The game manager would have access to it and could post the lists once January 1 comes along. I did it this way for my own Death Pool at work. Worked great. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-death-pool-discussion-about-rules-changes/801328.md?page=3)