LawTalkers
Forums
User Name
Remember Me?
Password
Register
FAQ
Calendar
Go to Page...
» Site Navigation
»
Homepage
»
Forums
»
Forum
>
User CP
>
FAQ
»
Online Users: 104
0 members and 104 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
»
Search Forums
»
Advanced Search
Thread
:
Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
View Single Post
01-06-2014, 03:00 PM
#
17
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,149
Re: Death Pool 2014. 10th Anniversary Special!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Atticus Grinch
First, please accept my thanks for moderating this every year. It brings a weird thrill into an otherwise drab life.
Second, I apologize for treating your question as rhetorical. I feel especially guilty because it drives me CRAZY when I ask similar questions ("Hey guys, which approach is more consistent with what we're trying to accomplish here, A or B?") and I get no responses, or responses only from the people who want to change what the organization is trying to accomplish.
That said, to the extent it helps with this issue going forward next year, I have no objection to the use of celebrities whose famousness originated from crime. The purpose served by the no-death-row rule isn't to redefine "celebrity"; it's to avoid the hazard to the game of allowing picks whose death is a scheduled event, period. There is no "reward" to bad people for making them famous enough for a death pool, as I see it.
My policy preference is to expand the definition of celebrity as broadly as possible so the DP lists don't become permutations of the same 25 people. I'm guilty of adopting the best people from last year's lists, and anyone who takes a gamble by adding in new blood is making this more fun, not less (IMHO). It would be a shame if everybody's list were the nine oldest people on aretheydeadyet.com plus one person who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer last year. The truly memorable hits here were Mindy McCready and Amy Winehouse — indisputably celebrities, yes, but we admire the spirit of gambling in spending a precious spot of 10 on something that risky.
I guess what I'm saying is that I respect your desire to make the right decision about eligibility, but as a player I'm not terribly disturbed by other people's idea of who's a celebrity. If you decided to get out of the gate keeping business, I wouldn't feel like the game had gone to shit.
hmm, on a Paig's sis's pool, some wag is now crowing about Kim's Uncle's wife. the wife of the guy who got fed to the dogs was his pick? WTF- not right- I just ncs-ed his ass on that one. I mean shit, they arrested 80 of his family- the 10 youngest would be really good picks-
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Hank Chinaski
Powered by
vBadvanced
CMPS v3.0.1
All times are GMT -4. The time now is
10:30 PM
.
-- LawTalk Forums vBulletin 3 Style
-- vBulletin 2 Default
-- Ravio_Blue
-- Ravio_Orange
Contact Us
-
Lawtalkers
-
Top
Powered by:
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By:
URLJet.com