In 2000, no one scored until February 12.
I agree with the above comment, either this is going down in history as the Greatest Dead Pool List EVAR or a complete shut out.
Sir, you have taken it all up a notch in anticipation!
I’m wondering though if you can count the Travessers as celebrities?
The patriarch, or whoever the guy is that is in prison, definitely yes. A Google News search turns up many mentions of his trial and imprisonment. The rest, dubious, although I think we’re getting into “Makes our head hurt” territory here.
Join the Low-Hanging-Fruit club:D
Hah. I was all set to tease Rachm Qoch about the risks of posting a fake list and then being unable to post his real list because of some distraction (an orgy breaks out, or something), and now this. Guess he was serious. Or he had a hell of a night last night.
Or maybe he’s decided to give the rest of us a fighting chance. If so, I tip my antlers to him.
I know it’s not my job to say this, but:
Let the carnage begin!
I think the debate about whether or not the Travessors are celebrities is a genuine one. I say they count this time, but from now on we need a better definition of celebrity. I personally picked someone that is only vaguely a celebrity but certainly an austrailian politician with a wiki. I only picked her because she is fat.
I guess Helen Suzman’s person’s death qualifies as a newworthy. Apartheid Activist.
I’m working on developing one for next year’s Pool. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
-
A celebrity must have achieved fame primarily for doing something of note, not just for being related to someone or for being subject to some noteworthy happenstance. A pick that does not meet this definition of celebrity can be allowed if ten players say they have heard of the person in question. This has to occur during the submission period, however.
-
A death scores points if it is reported in the national news of any country, or if the person in question passed the ten-player poll described above.
Note that the first rule governs the qualification of picks, while the second rule only applies to scoring.
I would also suggest that people whose terminal illnesses were announced before the start of the submission period be treated like centenarians: the pick is valid, but it scores no points since it’s trivially easy to predict. But that’s another issue entirely.
All rules, including this one, should be illegal.
Last minute entries could cause problems. I guess one could provide more alternates, but I’m generally against more rules.
Save for the top winner being ineligible next year. 
Yea this makes sense. Everybody knows Patrick Swayze is a dead man and given his age worth plenty of points. It’s almost like you have to put him on your list just to make sure you stay even. Of course there is the slim possibility that he makes it into next year, but pancreatic cancer is pretty much terminal and very quick IME.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t make sense to change the rules after the submisions have been made.
I dunno. I agree that pancreatic cancer is pretty bad. Wikipedia’s article on it is as grim as I remember: “Median survival from diagnosis is around 3 to 6 months; 5-year survival is less than 5%.”
But by the same token, Mr. Swayze has already beaten the odds to have survived nearly a year past his initial diagnosis in January of last year. I’ve included him on my list, but I really won’t be surprised if he continues to beat the odds - it’s pretty obvious that they’ve caught this early, which dramatically improves survival rates.
That’s the thing about choosing this sort of thing based on general statements about a population with a given disease: You can’t ever forget that individuals are a lot harder to predict than population trends.
That’s what they said about Ariel Sharon, and he has defied predictions for three years now.
Damn … missed it!
My step-brother’s FIL lived for years after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (I expected him to go rather quickly, as well.)
This would also be a rather hard rule to enforce. There are a number of diseases out there which are utlimately fatal, but don’t kill all that quickly. I put Roy Schieder on my list lat year, not because I knew he had multiple myeloma (I did, but didn’t remember it when I was making out my list), but because he hadn’t been in the public eye for a while, and I figured that his health must be pretty bad.
Then you have the issue of someone with a terminal illness dying from something else. Kind of silly to bar a person because they’ve got cancer, and then have them die in a plane crash or car wreck and not from the expected cause.
If folks wanted to restrict those who could be listed because of illness, perhaps making a rule which says that someone who has an announced terminal illness is only worth half the total possible points if they die from that disease. If they die from something else (and it would need to be something that isn’t obviously connected to their condition, so a pneumonia death for a lung cancer victim would be considered connected, since that some times kills folks with lung cancer), then they’re worth the full potential points.
So in the case of Swayze, who’s 56, if he dies of pancreatic cancer, he’d only be worth 22 points, but if he dies while trying to replicate Evel Knievel’s sharktank jump, then he’s worth the whole 44 points.
Perhaps there should be thread specifically for the review and possible revision of the DeathPool Rules? FWIW, I have no problem with the rules as they stand, but there seems to be some interest so why not have its own thread?
That’s kind of what I was thinking about when I said that they should be handled the same way as a 100-year-old person. The pick should still be valid, just not worth points. Or worth half points, if you like. I would say that such a rule should at any rate only be applied to people whose illness was FIRST announced in the previous year–because in the case of someone like Stephen Hawking, for example, it’s actually not so easy to predict which year he will die in.
I actually am starting to think that it’s best not to have a rule about this, but let the game moderator, on his own discretion, preemptively invalidate certain extremely obvious picks.
I agree.
I will start one.