2010 Death Pool Rules?

[Maister]

I wonder if different rules should be considered for the 2010 pool - like maybe award points based on age brackets. Wouldn't you agree that the younger celebrity picks are usually the bolder and more impressive when right? (that is if 'impressive' can be considered a good thing in this context)

[CJC]

I wonder if different rules should be considered for the 2010 pool - like maybe award points based on age brackets. Wouldn't you agree that the younger celebrity picks are usually the bolder and more impressive when right? (that is if 'impressive' can be considered a good thing in this context)

I don't think age brackets would work very well. We all would be much more surprised at say, Bill Clinton making the list over Patrick Swayze, yet Bill Clinton is quite a few years older.

My idea - the more that one person is picked, the fewer points awarded for that person. For example, a person picked by ten people would be worth much less (wouldn't have to be exactly 10%) than a person picked by one person.

[ofos]

I wonder if different rules should be considered for the 2010 pool - like maybe award points based on age brackets. Wouldn't you agree that the younger celebrity picks are usually the bolder and more impressive when right? (that is if 'impressive' can be considered a good thing in this context)

Maybe you should have started a new thread instead of derailing this one? Mods?

[Veloise]

My odometer is about to read 2009.

Oh, wait, long-range planning! Carry on!

[Maister]

My odometer is about to read 2009.

Oh, wait, long-range planning! Carry on!

No, it's just that it makes more sense to do it with a new contest in 2010 after nearly three dozen people have already made their 2009 picks. If the rules were to suddenly change now it would mean all those people would have to go back and revise their picks based on the new rules - not worth it IMO.

[Suburb Repairman]

My idea - the more that one person is picked, the fewer points awarded for that person. For example, a person picked by ten people would be worth much less (wouldn't have to be exactly 10%) than a person picked by one person.

That's exactly what I was thinking... weight the value of the death based on the number of others that made the same pick. I don't think the age thing would work to well; my 90 y.o. grandmother is probably less likely to die than some of the 20-30 y.o. folks I've seen on lists.

My proposal:

Each death be worth ten (10) points.
That point will be awarded similar to how a lottery is done--split between the winners.

For example, a person is picked by five people. Each of those five people would get two (2) points instead of ten (10). If another person is picked by only one, then he/she receives the full ten (10) points. This rewards people who make a more creative guess.

[Maister]

The points division is certainly a workable idea. The only drawback I could see is that it would tend to encourage people to vote for 'celebrities' no one has ever heard of (whaddaya mean 'not a celebrity'? Hey, Joe Schlobotnick was VICE PRESIDENT of Allied Aluminum Co. for almost three years back in the early 60's...)

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Don't we have rules as to what detirmines a "Celebrity" or not already?

[Chet]

Don't we have rules as to what detirmines a "Celebrity" or not already?

Generally a person of common knowledge. The death has to make a major publication like the Tribune or the Times. "My college prof..." doesn't count.

[ofos]

Guess I should contribute something too. I'm not a big "rules" guy, especially with nothing but somewhat ghoulish personal satisfaction going to the winner however...IF there had to be some rules for 2010, here are some possibilities:

1. Death by category - 10 picks with 2 in each of the following (or something similar): sports, politics, music, entertainment, industry/business,

2. Death by continent - North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, you get the picture.

3. Weighted death - Weight each death by the actuarial probability of death in their age group at their demise. Higher weights to lower probabilities.

4. Weight correct picks based on the age of the Cyburbian making the pick. Naturally, we elder Cybs should get more points based on the probability that we'll be participating in less future polls or may be the subject of demise ourselves.

[Veloise]

No, it's just that it makes more sense to do it with a new contest in 2010 after nearly three dozen people have already made their 2009 picks. If the rules were to suddenly change now it would mean all those people would have to go back and revise their picks based on the new rules - not worth it IMO.

Not sure that solidifying "the Rules" would cause any heartburn to any participants. I mean, it's not like the thousands of dollars in cash prizes AND world-wide renown will be affected.

I need to hit a check-out line and select some choices from the tabloid headlines. Hey, it got me one this year.

[mendelman]

[mental note]Add ofos to 2010 list, because he's an old geezer and may be an easy get.[/mental note]

[The One]

This still a private club going into 2010???

[ofos]

[mental note]Add ofos to 2010 list, because he's an old geezer and may be an easy get.[/mental note]

[Idle Speculation]Add mendelman to 2009 alternates? Seems to be potential for a mysteriously unexpected early out with actuarial bonus points awarded.[/Idle Speculation] Oh crap, did I say that out loud?

[Mastiff]

My idea - the more that one person is picked, the fewer points awarded for that person. For example, a person picked by ten people would be worth much less (wouldn't have to be exactly 10%) than a person picked by one person.

The problem is pick poaching. The only way to solve it is to have everyone PM BUN with their picks. I'm sure he'd love that, too.

[Bear Up North]

Here is the only change Da Bear would make, for the 2010 Death Pool.....

Whatever the age of the "stiff". subtract that number from 100. The resulting number would be the number of points awarded for the "bucket-kick". Example follows (with really lame fake Cyburbian screen names).....

Clem Down South
Paul Newman (17 Points)
Suzanne Pleshette (30 Points)
Gerald Ford (7 Points)
TOTAL = 54

Tragic Not Hip
Paul Newman (17 Points)
Suzanne Pleshette (30 Points)
Richard Wright, from Pink Floyd (35 Points)
TOTAL = 82

Both participants picked three correct deaths. In the 2009 rules, they would TIE. In the option proposed above, Tragic Not Hip is a clear victor because of his gamble in picking a younger person.

Bear

[kjel]

Here is the only change Da Bear would make, for the 2010 Death Pool.....

Whatever the age of the "stiff". subtract that number from 100. The resulting number would be the number of points awarded for the "bucket-kick".

I like this! Easy too understand, easy to keep track of, and takes into consideration age of the doomed.

[Veloise]

Thus dissuading anyone from selecting Ella Mae Johnson.

[Chet]

NO NEW RULES

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Where is the 2010 thread at? I will have my list in on time this year!

[ofos]

NO RULES RULES! Let's make a rule to that effect.

[Bear Up North]

This Bear pulled the chadometer for the "subtract from 100" plan that was proposed by......this Bear.

Because I am the dude that runs the pool do I get to vote four times? Once for each nail in the coffin?

As for the "no rules" contingent that is making some noise.....

If "no rules" wins, here's my picks.....

The old lady down the street they took away in the ambulance last week.
A guy I worked with in the 1970s who was in his 50s back then.
My cousin LeRoy.
Etc.



Bear

[Richmond Jake]

no changes. as a group, we never agree on anything.

[sisterceleste]

NO NEW RULES

I agree...why change?

[kjel]

We need a poll!