This thread is to discuss possible rule changes to the Death Pool. As the entries for 2009 are now closed, any rule changes will not be implemented until 2010. It may seem premature to discuss things now, but the subject matter is fresh in our minds so let’s resolve things now rather than forget them until it is too late for next year.
There have been several suggestions made about different points being given under different circumstances, for example:
First to name a celebrity gets extra points if the celebrity dies, with points awarded according to how many other players nominated that celebrity. I can’t say I am terribly keen on this - does someone really deserve a bunch of extra points just because they are quick on the trigger and nominate Patrick Swayze a few seconds after I start the contest? And let’s face it, I am the only one who knows exactly when I am starting the thread. I can get some low-hanging fruit into a list as the second post within seconds - with 10 or so place-holders that I then revise at 11:59PM on 12/31.
None or fewer points given for celebrities announced to be terminally ill. Isn’t that what we are trying to discover when we research celebrities for our lists? Many people will search for various words such as “lung cancer” and “terminally ill”. I don’t see why we should pick on one search option and ban it. And what if a celebrity is declared to be terminally ill in an obscure news source that someone manages to dig up later? I am sure we will not want to invalidate that person from possibly dozens of lists.
I am open to suggestions of new awards, as long as they are easy enough to administer.
The biggest issue is whether we should put some limitation on whether a person is a celebrity. I think we should - it is supposed to be a “celebrity” death pool after all. Two types of constraint have been suggested:
is the person really famous enough? This could be resolved by setting a rule about the death having to be announced in a major national news source. We could even pre-define the news sources (e.g. CNN, BBC).
should we allow people who are only famous because of their illness, and possibly associated activities, e.g. fund-raising. Note that if we imposed this rule, it would conceivably have ruled out Randy Pausch.
I would support a rule about the death needing to be reported in a major news source. I also support a restriction on people who are only famous because of their illness. In the latter case, this would need to be resolved before the entries are closed for 2010. I suggest that people can challenge a nomination and then we can vote on it. If the “celebrity” is not challenged by the end of Jan 1, they are in. The Jan 1 date is to prevent someone avoiding challenges by posting just before midnight on New Year’s eve. If players are concerned that an entrant may be challenged and removed, they should make sure they have nominated alternates.
I know this will sound like a sucking up, but I say that if amarone is doing the work then he gets to decide what constitutes celebrity. Too many rules makes the job more difficult. I’m okay with “celebrity” meaning someone who’s death is reported by a major news service. I don’t like the voting idea, not everyone may have a chance to participate on a timely basis.
Can’t say I’m terribly fond of this idea. Lots of posters prefer to post their list right away and some prefer to wait till the very end to post their list . Just because someone gets in first doesn’t seem fair to those who want to wait till the 31st.
I don’t like this one either. I see celebrities like Patrick Swayze as easy picks. Some people prefer not to go for easy picks, but some of us do.
We could call it the Terri Schiavo rule. I guess it’s tricky, but if they’re famous only for being ill, I don’t think they count as being a celebrity.
On the “Swayze Problem”, I’ve come around to the view that there should be no rule, but that the moderator, on his or her own discretion, could preemptively rule out certain picks if they are too obvious, or maybe just reduce their value. This should of course be optional, and done with restraint if at all, but I think it could be good for the game. An extremely famous, relatively young person who’s almost certain to die in the next year effectively just reduces everybody’s list by one.
On the definition of celebrity, I favor a two-pronged approach:
During the submission period, picks could be challenged on such bases as “only famous for illness” or, as I would suggest, “not famous for doing anything of note”. I would also suggest that in case of a challenge, the deciding vote be oriented toward determining whether the person is famous enough rather than whether the person is famous for the right reason. This is because there are some people who I think clearly count as celebrities despite having no particular basis for their fame. (Chelsea Clinton comes to mind.) So I would suggest that the challenge first need to be accepted by the moderator as having a valid basis other than insufficient fame, and then be beaten if, say, 10 players acknowledge that they have heard of the person in question before. This is kind of a complicated idea, but it would be very simple to carry out. If I’m not making it clear, tell me and I’ll explain it again.
During the point-scoring phase, to encourage a global outlook we should simply say that the death should be reported in any country’s national news. If it is not, the pick should still be valid for “bonus prize” purposes but should not score any points. (Maybe it would also be good to waive this requirement for any pick that was previously challenged and beat the challenge.)
How about we score terminally ill people the same way as those on death row - you only get points if they die of something other than what they had been diagnosed of (though personally I am undecided on whether or not suicide would count in this case).
I pretty much like the suggestions that amarone made. I do not support a limitation of nominations based on whether they are known to have a terminal illness or not, for reasons already mentioned. I like the idea of being able to challenge off a dubious pick. And I support the limitation on people known only for having a terminal illness, although I think this may venture into some gray territory (for example, Elizabeth Edwards is well-known for being Senator John Edwards’ wife, but is even better-known for being a cancer patient, so is she a valid pick or not?)
In general, however, I mostly support the idea that amarone gets to make the rules as he is the one doing all of the grunt work in maintaining the database.
I think Elizabeth Edwards is a valid pick, as she was known before she was diagnosed, and if she’d died some other way, like in a car accident, her death would have been reported.
Someone like Terri Schiavo, OTOH, was merely famous for being on life support.
The difference between terminally ill and death row is that death row is a date known in advance while terminally ill is not and can stick around for years to come (especially if on my list).
I do like the idea of being able to challenge celebrity (even though one of mine could be challenged this year), but I can’t think of a legitimate way to do it without causing amarone too much of a headache.
eh, not so much I think. Most people on death row are on for YEARS and have any number of legal challenges and stays of executions that can be petitioned for. And yes, while their date of execution is known in advance (somewhat), since there is always the possibility that right up until they take that last ride on ol’ Mr. Sparky they can get a reprieve/stay of indeterminant length, I think the analogy to terminally ill still holds.
I would say that the main difference is that someone being sentenced to death is a matter of fact whereas someone being “terminally ill” is a matter of opinion. This may be the opinion of a highly-educated professional, or sensation-mongering by journalists. Anyone can state that someone is “terminally ill”.
To date I have viewed my role as being an administrator, and that the game is “owned” by all of us. However, I am happy to take on more of a game moderator role, within the bounds of guidelines set by everyone else.
I am only suggesting changes that I am happy to administer. If anyone suggests rule changes that would create more work than I want, then have no fear - I will raise an objection.
If I am some sort of moderator of challenges, I do not see that as a lot of work. I will probably not challenge picks myself - I am too busy entering names to go look them up. I don’t expect there would be enough challenges to make it a serious inconvenience to me.
- is the person really famous enough? This could be resolved by setting a rule about the death having to be announced in a major national news source. We could even pre-define the news sources (e.g. CNN, BBC).
Defining “celebrity” as “someone whose obituary is published by CNN/BBC” potentially puts foreign dopers at an unfair disadvantage, IMO. I am not familiar with 99% of your American sporting celebrities, who would be allowed under those rules, but 99% of my Australian sporting celebrities would be out of the running. Ditto newscasters, radio announcers, authors, etc. If you can find a way to enforce this so it doesn’t automatically knock out celebrities from other countries whose American counterparts are permitted then I’d be a little more comfortable about it, but I still don’t really like it.
- First to name a celebrity gets extra points if the celebrity dies, with points awarded according to how many other players nominated that celebrity.
I disagree with this proposed change. Not only does it not add anything to the game but it makes point tracking more difficult.
*
None or fewer points given for celebrities announced to be terminally ill.*
I disagree with this proposed change. Too hard to enforce IMO - trying to pinpoint when an announcement was first made about the health problem and if it pre-dated the pick, potential for arguments about whether or not the announcement of the illness amounted to announcing a terminal illness or a lesser problem, potential for people to argue that they hadn’t read or heard about the health problem when they made the pick and therefore they shouldn’t be penalised… Besides, people who research their lists deserve the chance to get higher scores than people who just name the first 13 celebs to spring to mind, and chance always throws in random car accidents, murders, drug overdoses and other unforeseeable events that make it possible for anyone to win the game, not just RQ.
- should we allow people who are only famous because of their illness, and possibly associated activities, e.g. fund-raising.
I fully support disallowing people who are** only** famous because of their terminal illness.
“CNN, BBC” was not meant to be an exclusive list, just examples. However, I am fine with trying to come up with a definition of what would constitute an appropriate new source without having to name them all in advance.
Maybe if you pick a healthy celebrity one year and they drop dead of a terminal illness later in the year you should score extra points, says the person who picked Petter Jennings in 2005.
Yeah, I realised that. I think naming an appropriate news source for every country a Doper might be in, visit, have a connection to or gain inspiration from would be a full job in itself.
I don’t think the list would be quite that extensive – this is an English-speaking board, after all. So amarone’s CNN and BBC cover USA and UK – add one for Canada and another for Australia, and Bob’s your uncle.
Agree that people who are “famous only for being terminal,” whatever shape “terminal” might take (I’d include the crazy cultists) should be eliminated. Elizabeth Edwards would be allowed as being known prior to, and for reasons other than, her diagnosis.
Do not think that people who are known to have received a diagnosis of a fatal disease should be eliminated – big ugly morass of rules and challenges and loopholes that doesn’t need to be entered into.
By the way, someone in the other thread mentioned that the “only known for having a terminal illness” rule would potentially cover someone like Choi Yo-Sam, the boxer who died early last year after suffering brain hemorrhage after a bout. I disagree; certainly his illness made him a lot higher-profile than he would have been, but he was known for boxing well before that.
I think the rule would primarily cover people like 19-year-old cancer patients whose families have created charity organizations or whatnot and therefore get news coverage. Or people like Terri Schiavo.