It seems to me that this question is the only one that HAS been answered. There seems to be general agreement that someone who becomes famous for being ill or dying should not count.
But unless I’ve missed it, there has not been any such agreement on what it means to be a celebrity. The hockey guy, for example. I’m sure fans of his team knew who he was, and even many who followed that particular league. Is that enough?
According to amarone in post #76, no. He was not enough of a celebrity until he was clonked on the head, and he was picked, presumably, because he clonked his head. . I suggested earlier the only criteria I could think of – that a Google search turn up items about something other than the person’s illness or death, or maybe something prior to the person’s illness or death. Several people didn’t like that.
I’m not fond of defining a celebrity by whether a specific list of media outlets announces the death. Inevitably someone who many of us would consider a clebrity will die but not be mentioned in the “right” places. Like Robert Asprin, mentioned by Loach, who I absolutely think of as a celebrity because I’m a sci-fi fan.
I’m starting to like the idea of allowing 24 hours to challenge a nomination on January 1.
Defining celebrity is tough. I think it’s one of those “I know it when I see it” things. I, personally, am happy to defer to amerone’s judgement in the case of a challenge, or alternatively perhaps we could take votes from any players who wish to vote within a set period after the challenge is raised? I still object to defining the news sources that must carry the story. Again, it seems like one of those things that either our Game Master or a self-elected panel of players could more easily decide on when the issue arises.
I am of two minds about when a challenge on the legitimacy of a pick should be raised. It’s very hard to keep up with all the entries as they come in, but it also seems unfair to strike someone upon their death, thereby giving the player no chance to substitute another selection to keep their list at 13 (unless they have valid alts). On the other hand if you replace a pick who was ruled ineligible someway into the game year, you have access to information that the rest of us didn’t when we made our picks so that would be unfair too. Challenging after the close date to reduce opponent’s lists could almost become a tactical move if it were allowed.
With people who became activists, it’s a tough call. Sure, the illness was the predicate event, but they went far beyond just being a patient, right?
Yikes- glad I don’t have to make the call.
ETA- and yes, I agree that the time to challenge a pick is before 11:59pm 12/31/09, so as to give the player a chance to substitute. It should be up to the player to post his/her list in a timely manner if they feel they might have made a dodgy pick.
I have been thinking about how I would implement a rule forbidding picks who are only known for being ill. Basically, it will come down to my decision, but if I am unsure a) I would err on the side of allowing a pick, and b) I would throw the situation open for discussion.
With respect to allowing challenges, I was going to take a slightly different tack. I was thinking of allowing people who are uncertain about their picks to ask for a ruling any time up to Jan 7th. If I disqualify their pick, then I use their first alternate.
Yes, people could ask me before submitting their list, but I am a player too and people may not want to disclose their list to me before the deadline. “Yes, he’s valid - and now he’s on my list too”.
Yes, I know that I see all lists before the deadline anyway, but when I am processing 180 lists with over 800 different people (and most of them on the final day), I don’t have time to go research them.
If someone does not ask for a ruling before Jan 7 and that pick subsequently dies, I will rule at the time. I would not replace a disqualified pick with an alternate - it could get too difficult if the alternate had already died.
A dodgy pick could also be an inspired pick, though. Post early and risk giving away your trump card, or post close to the deadline and risk your pick being disqualified? I’d go so far as to allow a three day period after deadlines close to finalise “dodgy” picks - that is, 24 hours to call them out, 24 hours to vote if they should be disqualified, 24 hours to nominate a substitute for the disqualified pick.
That is difficult, because imagine a scenario where Fred and Bill both raise tons of money for cancer research and get lots of coverage in the media. Fred is healthy but Bill has cancer. Does that make Fred valid but Bill not?
I would have to answer yes. I don’t see any other way to make it black or white.
With respect to the people mentioned, I would rule Terry Fox and Jane Tomlinson as invalid. Neither would have been known at all other than because of their illness. Christopher Nolan I would allow because he has at least had a novel published. You could arguably disallow him if he had only had his autobiography published, because that is mostly about or because of his illness. But his novel makes the difference for me.
I was discussing three separate issues. I probably did not write it clearly. Issue one is somebody is famous solely for being ill. Issue two is how famous does someone have to be to be famous enough. Issue three is someone who is famous strictly for being the relative of a celebrity. I think issue one is pretty clear cut. I think issue three is a little less clear (some use their relatives fame to become famous on their own) but it can still be worked.
Issue two is murky. Someone may be famous throughout Australia but unheard of in the US. Their obit may not be on CNN or BBC. Does that mean they are not famous? Not all famous people get mention on national news when they die. For instance, Phillip Jose Farmer died recently. If his death was announced on CNN I must have missed it. He was a prolific best selling author. He won all the major awards available for Science Fiction authors. He was named a Grand Master by the SFWA. He had a horrible miniseries made from some of his books. Somehow he wasn’t famous because he wasn’t mentioned on CNN?
I didn’t do a search but it was not on the homepage when it happened. At least not on CNN international which is all I can get right now. If someone here hadn’t linked to an article from a smaller source I wouldn’t have heard about it for a long time. I check the SFWA site every now and then just for that purpose. Well known SF authors have died and I didn’t here about it for years.
No need to apologize, and it’s certainly a fair comment. It was more than that though, in the sense that various media outlets went beyond picking up the AP story as literal filler for their column inches. I was interviewed on local and regional TV and radio, and a magazine commissioned a cartoonist to illustrate the sentence. Also, the Washington Post reprinted me last year, apparently because the writer prefered my entry over the 2008 entry.
And honestly, I couldn’t tell you if any of that made me a celebrity, or “more” of a celebrity, or simply better filler. If I ever was a celebrity, it means that celebrityhood has a REALLY short shelf life for an isolated act. To stay a celebrity requires some kind of media operation putting your name out there again and again. Like the radio station you work for or the hockey team you play for.
I envy Joe the Plumber. IMO, his actual accomplishment was even less than mine, yet he was smart enough to jump on a celebrity bandwagon and be a darling of the right and an idiot all over the world.
This post is actually a reply to amarone from the main Death Pool thread, where I erroneously started a discussion about rules, forgetting the existence of this thread.
The topic: Quartz’s pick of Colin Howe, who apparently was a cancer patient that would fall into the “famous only for being sick” category. My question about whether the points would count for him specifically was less about his status as famous only for being sick, and more about the fact that there is no information on him anywhere on the Internet that I can find. Do we give credit for celebs that die with no record of their death anywhere online?
(I want to be clear that I am asking this mostly out of curiosity and not because I am going to be really torqued if Quartz gets the points or whatever! I was just sort of wondering.)
No. Of course, Quartz could find some written evidence and post an image of it online. But I am not going to award points based on a web site disappearing, and I don’t think Quartz expects me to.
:smack: