Dead Pool Dead?

Okay, here it is . . . some of the managers in this years pool are aggrieved over what they see as an angle shoot on the part of one manager.

Basically, that manager selected a Death Row inmate with a scheduled execution date, and all appeals exhausted. There are no rules in place to prevent this, but of course the argument becomes, "the spirit of the game".

My position as Moderator has been that, while it may be an angle shoot, there are no rules in place to prevent it, and therefore the manager should be paid out per the agreed schedule. One manager has already stated his desire to forfeit his position in the pool over this, so what I would like to know is the following:

Given what has occurred with regard to this year's pool, do the managers involved wish to scrub the pool for this year, and develop new rules to prevent a similar occurrence in the future?

To keep some sense on anonymity, managers can respond via PM if they like.
«1

Comments

  • I am sure we can find some way to revive the credibility of the dead pool for this year. If we scrub this year's.... I am quite sure that there will be very little interest in future years.

    We should keep discussion of this issue within this thread or in the DPIII chat thread so as not to clutter things up horribly.

    Just found another little snipit that is worth reading from the "I've fallen and can't get up" dead pool. Not sure of it's background or how long it's been running but these sound like credible guidelines.

    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] WHAT CONSTITUTES A CELEBRITY?[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Several factors must be met in order for a pick to meet the definition of celebrity. First, the pick must be alive at the time the list is e-mailed or submitted. A pick who is dead when placed on a list, will be removed from that list by the 2011 IFAICGU Celebrity Dead Pool and the Death Watcher submitting the list ends up playing with a list containing less people than the other Death Watchers. The Death Watcher simply loses the pick from their list and plays out the season with a reduced number of picks on that entry. (Remember, do your homework kiddies).[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Second, a celebrity must have some notability. Since that can be a questionable term, the 2011 IFAICGU Celebrity Dead Pool defines a celebrity as any famous sports, political, entertainment, or other national or international figure whose death is announced in the Associated Press. (Use your heads here.... movie stars are celebrities, movie extras are not; presidents of countries are celebrities, presidents of your local girl scout troop are not; singers and song writers of national or international note are celebrities; the fact that you sing in the shower does not make you a celebrity). We hope you get it. If you pick the truly obscure, you run the risk of not scoring the death as the person may not get an AP report of their death. In addition, you make our job harder and most of the other Death Watchers get really snotty about you too.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Third, certain riff raff, though their deaths will likely be reported in the AP, are excluded from celebrity status. No person who is killed by a scheduled execution: foreign, federal, or state, will count as a celebrity (this does not include assassination, overthrow, or coup d'etat). The idea here is no death row, political prisoners condemned to death, or the like.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]NEW RULE FOR 2009:[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]Starting with the 2009 IFAICGU Celebrity Dead Pool, there is now an exception to the Associated Press mention being the sole criteria for qualifying as a celebrity. Just being the 'oldest' at something (example: oldest man in the world, etc) will no longer qualify as a celebrity. So don't got looking for the 'oldest' of anything--they won't count. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]Still confused? Okay, here's an example: a Death Watcher picks the 'Oldest Woman in the United States.' Assuming she's not famous for any reason other than being the oldest woman in the United States, here death would not count in the 2011 IFAICGU Celeberity Dead Pool--even if she does get a mention in the Associated Press. On the other hand, picking, say, a retired star NFL quarterback who also happened to be currently the oldest living NFL player would count. Why the difference? Because in the second example, just being a retired star NFL quarterback is probably going to be enough to get the AP mention anyway. The fact that he is also the oldest is a secondary claim to fame (and only became a claim to fame because he lived so long, not because of what he's accomplished in life). Still confused? Well, that's too bad, because that's all the examples you're getting. So just stay away from the 'oldest' picks and you should be fine.

    Another snipit:

    [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]14. DUMBASS RULE #2[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Here's our second Death Watcher related rule. Let's say John scours the Internet for really old people. Then he proceeds to put some of these folks on his list for the 2011 IFAICGU Celebrity Dead Pool . Two things might happen. First, one lady might die and not get an AP mention. Bummer. Second, let's say John couldn't even remember who some of his entries were or what the hell made them even remotely famous. So the rule is this: You need to know who your entries are and must be able to prove a mention of their deaths in the AP if asked by the 2011 IFAICGU Celebrity Dead Pool. Inability to produce such mention of death in the AP, if asked, will cause us to consider your dead person a "Non-Celebrity." Non-Celebrities will not count as valid picks in the pool and will not be counted to tally up a winner at the end of the 2011 IFAICGU Celebrity Dead Pool.[/FONT]
  • Bill, these are all good points, but they remain points made after the fact. As much as I may agree, it does not seem right to change the rules mid-stream. That is why I feel that, if too many managers are against paying off on Mr. Welch, the game should be scrubbed. The only other alternative would be to scrub this one, amend the rules as needed, and start over with a shortened season.
  • True and fair enough. It is 'mid stream' as it were. If we can't figure out a way to 'pinch it off' and resolve these issues to the reasonable satisfaction of a majority, then we should simply call this and any future DP busto. There will always be ways in which certain loopholes can be manipulated and rules circumvented.

    I have no interest in seeing that happen and see no reason why resolution to the current problems aren't possible.

    We have a dp moderator, a PFC moderator, an acclaimed tournament director (Al) all of which have significant experience in making decisions that result in the "best interests of the continuation of the game" in their respective fields.

    If we're going to dig our heels in to the point where no negotiation or compromise is possible, then we're just being overly stubborn.
  • I am assuming this is my pick. All, I did was look through the list of last year's members and put them on my list for the draft. So this was a pick on someone elses list from last year and no grievance was made then.

    Its not an angle shoot, its called research. Same as putting Etta James first on your list for this year, knowing how dire her health is.

    And, I picked last, so this was available for anyone else to do prior to my pick.
  • True and fair enough. It is 'mid stream' as it were. If we can't figure out a way to 'pinch it off' and resolve these issues to the reasonable satisfaction of a majority, then we should simply call this and any future DP busto. There will always be ways in which certain loopholes can be manipulated and rules circumvented.

    I have no interest in seeing that happen and see no reason why resolution to the current problems aren't possible.

    We have a dp moderator, a PFC moderator, an acclaimed tournament director (Al) all of which have significant experience in making decisions that result in the "best interests of the continuation of the game" in their respective fields.

    If we're going to dig our heels in to the point where no negotiation or compromise is possible, then we're just being overly stubborn.

    And we have an angle shooter that hasn't come back to present any defense for his "sneaky" pick.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    I am assuming this is my pick. All, I did was look through the list of last year's members and put them on my list for the draft. So this was a pick on someone elses list from last year and no grievance was made then.

    Its not an angle shoot, its called research. Same as putting Etta James first on your list for this year, knowing how dire her health is.

    And, I picked last, so this was available for anyone else to do prior to my pick.

    Lol. You know what happens when you assume. Read the threads.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    I am assuming this is my pick. All, I did was look through the list of last year's members and put them on my list for the draft. So this was a pick on someone elses list from last year and no grievance was made then.
    .

    Not you. The Mill picked some random death row inmate with no appeals left.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Bill, these are all good points, but they remain points made after the fact. As much as I may agree, it does not seem right to change the rules mid-stream. That is why I feel that, if too many managers are against paying off on Mr. Welch, the game should be scrubbed. The only other alternative would be to scrub this one, amend the rules as needed, and start over with a shortened season.

    But we're not 'mid-stream'. The pool just went active. We're actually damn lucky that this happened now and not later in the year.

    It would be very easy to come implement some new rules and scrub any picks that aren't 'valid' from any roster, (not just TheMills') and pick up a few 'pinch hitters' in those lists, or have EVERYONE a list member or two to even out the number of players per list.
  • Agreed . . . but as of now, only a couple voices are speaking out. As moderator, I could rule unilaterally that the pay-out should go forward, and that would likely be the end of this year's pool. At the very least it would drastically alter it's composition. Likewise if the ruling is in the opposite direction.

    I am starting to feel that the best solution might be to cancel the current pool, revamp the rules, and start over. But I would like to hear from more of the managers first.
  • I believe it is far to early in the effort of trying to figure out a satisfactory compromise to the current issue to discuss scrubbing the current pool. I believe we have not as a group, whole or in part, reasonably attempted to find resolution.

    Scrubbing the pool and starting over will sour the perception and involvement in the pool. I am sure that if we scrub it and start over there will not be the same number of managers in the reconstructed pool, or in future years pools.
  • Just read the other thread. Now I see the issue. I think what is up for debate, is how do we determine notoriety ? The fact that they were on death row is irrelevent, its their fame or infamy that is up for debate.
  • djgolfcan wrote: »
    Just read the other thread. Now I see the issue. I think what is up for debate, is how do we determine notoriety ? The fact that they were on death row is irrelevent, its their fame or infamy that is up for debate.

    Correct.

    I'm also against picking the 'oldest WHATEVER in the world' if they also don't have any other fame to back up their notoriety.
  • I believe it is far to early in the effort of trying to figure out a satisfactory compromise to the current issue to discuss scrubbing the current pool. I believe we have not as a group, whole or in part, reasonably attempted to find resolution.

    Fair enough, but any compromise ruling against paying out for TheMill's #1 pick has the potential of altering the pool if he balks and resigns.

    Scrubbing the pool and starting over will sour the perception and involvement in the pool. I am sure that if we scrub it and start over there will not be the same number of managers in the reconstructed pool, or in future years pools.

    While this may be true, I do not think it would necessarily be the case. A reconstructed pool, with beefed up rules, might actually be more attractive to a larger audience.

    Please see bolded.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Please see bolded.

    Isn't that what I said?
  • Please check the other thread, Ive responded in the other DP3 thread. I Did not see that a new thread was started just for this issue.
  • TheMill wrote: »
    Please check the other thread, Ive responded in the other DP3 thread. I Did not see that a new thread was started just for this issue.
    From the other thread, by TheMill:



    Wow, I expected some flak but the dissolving of the dp.. CRAZY. Milo was right, I had a strategy going into this, Picking the worlds oldest person,Oldest Holocaust survivor etc. kinda seem like no brainers. When we play cards were all looking for AA starting hand right? So I picked the oldest people in world, to me there the closet human being mathematically to the finish line. Would you rather pay to fill your empty gas tank or fill it up from half ? As for picking your "uncle fred" if uncle fred gets 1.6 million hits on google (and your not pushing him down the stairs) then by all means pick him and I would be more than HAPPY to pay out. Calling this angle shooting is a strech. In no way am I trying to decive/cheat people outta there money. Being the rookie on DP3 I wanted to make sure that I at least got 1 player across the line. If I was terminally ill and picked myself would this be cheating? I would say yes, But if another player knew of my condition and picked me I see that as perfectly legit (not with standing the fact that I don't even come close to meeting the infamous factor)


    Look, bottom line and I say this to all mangers

    I REALLY like the forum and the people on it and hope to have nothing but great experiances but I'm kinda feeling like I pissed off the "cool kids" in high school or beat the home town favorite at there own game and now am paying the price.

    So in the interest of keeping everyone happy I will drop Gary from my team. But for the record I feel this is unfair, I am more interested in meeting new like mind people (card players) and trying to hone my meager poker skills. Then I am in collecting $80 that pstars will slowly suck from me. I hope the next time a fellow manger and myself find ourselves at the same table/trrny that we could take a few minutes to discuss this matter. Once again I very humbly apoligize for upsetting the players, I was just trying to be shrewd about my picks.

    Sorry Milo didn't see your last post
  • I would like to suggest that we accept the Mill's offer to pass on the pay-out for Welch. But I would also suggest that we allow the remainder of his roster to remain intact as a compromise. While those "oldest" players may pay out this year, they will do so at the minimum.
  • I can live with that, although I would like to point out that I object to his feelings of being the victim in not collecting for Welch. But if he truly wants to become a part of this great poker community he is taking the correct direction.

    As for the "oldest" debate, future pools should be under the rules wildbill posted here earlier.
  • Milo wrote: »
    I would like to suggest that we accept the Mill's offer to pass on the pay-out for Welch. But I would also suggest that we allow the remainder of his roster to remain intact as a compromise. While those "oldest" players may pay out this year, they will do so at the minimum.

    I'd accept this.
  • Last year, I went through the list of the oldest people on a particular website, and filled my list from those names, as TheMill put it, they are the most likely to expire, given their age.

    I will agree to The Mill's compromise and appreciate his willingness to do this. And future pools will need rules to prevent this in the future.
  • Milo wrote: »
    I would like to suggest that we accept the Mill's offer to pass on the pay-out for Welch. But I would also suggest that we allow the remainder of his roster to remain intact as a compromise. While those "oldest" players may pay out this year, they will do so at the minimum.

    I agree, has long as the rule's for next years pool are amended to keep those notorious but not FAMOUS people from the Dead Pool.
  • I'm not 100% sure what to do. TheMill got involved in our game in which we had no clearly stated rules. We had basic rules applied to take into account basic situations, however we had not specifically outlined anything to address more complex situations.

    I don't think it has anything to do with pissing off the cool kids, and it's unfortunate but understandable that he feels that way.

    I could go either way in terms of paying out the death as I feel we may have created our own problem by not addressing the situation prior to the pool having started.

    I do not believe that any decision will make everyone happy and satisfied in the overall sense, however in this regard compromise is necessary.
  • I agree with the compromise. But I'll also say that picking Gary Welch was clearly an angle. This pick cannot be compared to Aziz.

    With Aziz, there is no guarantee that the execution will ever take place. On Dec 5, Welch had clemency denied. Excluding the fact that he was a random, he was chosen after his clemency was denied. You KNEW he was going to die.

    Now lets move on
  • The majority seem to have spoken on this so here is what will happen:

    Welch will be deleted from TheMill's roster. After that change, all rosters are set in stone, and future deaths will be paid out accordingly, based on the age structure posted.

    Future Dead Pools will be posted with an amended and complete rules structure to prevent this issue from cropping up again.

    As Hobbes said, lets move on gents.
  • If TheMill is willing to go along with this, I can agree with this result as well.

    So, at this point we have an agreement in place by the majority.

    Do we wait for Al and Comp to speak to the matter?
  • I'm not 100% sure what to do. TheMill got involved in our game in which we had no clearly stated rules. We had basic rules applied to take into account basic situations, however we had not specifically outlined anything to address more complex situations.

    I don't think it has anything to do with pissing off the cool kids, and it's unfortunate but understandable that he feels that way.

    I could go either way in terms of paying out the death as I feel we may have created our own problem by not addressing the situation prior to the pool having started.

    I do not believe that any decision will make everyone happy and satisfied in the overall sense, however in this regard compromise is necessary.

    If you (or anyone else) wants to pay the $10, go right ahead.

    As for the comprimise, that's exactly what it is. There are ill feelings on both sides but if everyone can agree to move on, then let's do it.
    If TheMill is willing to go along with this, I can agree with this result as well.

    So, at this point we have an agreement in place by the majority.

    Do we wait for Al and Comp to speak to the matter?

    Yes
  • I think comp has remained silent due to his position as a cpf mod. Either that, or he is just too old to be up this early. I think they will both accept the compromise we have come up with.
  • I think Comp as forum mod is likely staying out of this for a reason.

    Knowing Al, and never hearing him curse before, I think his use of the term "fuckers" in the other thread says it all.
  • Well I hope this puts this issue to rest. I will not keep feeding the fire by throwing stones at people who call me names or highlight the fact that we waited for late players or pick apart other teams cause there are deffinetly a few questionable picks. I consider this issue FINISHED as do I hope the other managers But I do ask that fellow mangers take the time to meet me and chat about this sometime in the next year. Now if you will excuse me I going back to my perch and hover like a vulture for the next players demise...mahmahmahmah pinky finger in coner of mouth.
  • I don't think his position as a mod has any bearing on this, but I could be wrong.

    However, I agree that both would be happy with the compromise in the better interest of the perception of the fairness of the pool by the majority. Personally I think Comp is waiting to see if the shitstorm subsides before he steps into the spray. Al's probably got better things to do on a Sunday morning!
Sign In or Register to comment.