236 replies to this topic

[themaninblack]

Windsor, on Jul 27 2011, 09:50 PM, said:

themaninblack, on Jul 27 2011, 08:21 PM, said:

That's the game, son - it's life and death!

Exactly. That's why if Mubarak does hang, we should get the points and, furthermore, we should get the unnatural death bonus.

Quote

We have someone who was a dictator for nigh on 30 years. Think about it, there might have been a chance that one day he may get overthrown. Comes with the territory.

That is a fairly weak argument. Are you suggesting that we should shy away from dictators because there is always a possibility they might be overthrown? I think you know that argument is bullshit.

We all know that the "no execution" rule was brought in specifically to prevent participants from choosing candidates who they knew were likely to be executed in the near future. This does not apply to Mubarak who was sitting safe in December 2010. The fact that he had managed to hold on to power for 30 year, more or less with the backing of the West, showed that he knew what he was doing. Furthermore, had his actions not led to the deaths of protesters - something which happened in February 2011 - the likelihood is that he wouldn't be facing execution today.

I'm not suggesting you pick anybody. You pick who you bloody well like as long as they are not already dead and not under 18. I'm struggling to understand what your point is. Besides, Hosni Mubarak isn't even fucking dead yet. He could a) die of starvation die naturally of cancer c) get murdered in prison or on bail d) executed after a trial e) get eaten alive alive by hermit crabs. Even if he was on trial, we don't know the intricacies of Egyptian justice. There may not even BE a fucking death penalty, particularly if the whole system is turned on it's head. So he was fucking safe and dandy, so was Eric Honeker, so was Rupert fucking Murdoch! You can't predict with any certainty what exactly is going to happen. So you picked him, what did you want to happen? That's he stays in power and dies in his sleep just so you get a few points. Try telling that to the people in Cairo...

Your argument is fucking bullshit. You can't predict the future with 100% certainty. If you did, you'd win every year and what a boring load of shite that would be. Take Amy Winehouse. It is not a given at this stage that she died unnaturally. Yes, she undoubtedly contributed to her demise by consuming a load of drugs, but until that coroner gives his verdict I cannot give any extra points at this stage. Most on the DDP picked her because there was a chance that she's either do herself in or overdose. There's a chance there might be neither. Thems are the breaks mate, take it or leave it, and I'm sure not bending the rules on the spurious notion that you didn't know what was going to happen to some pick or other. You could still pick him even if he did face execution, because he might croak before the hangman comes to town.

[Windsor]

I think you are being unreasonable.

I am very well aware that Mubarak is not yet dead. I am merely making the argument that if he is executed in 2011, points should still be awarded to those who chose him. My point is clear. He was chosen in the spirit of the game. He wasn't chosen because it was believed he would be executed and therefore a guaranteed hit. The fact that he is in the position he is now is down to a twist of fate which we couldn't have seen coming in December 2010.

You know full well what the non-execution rule is for, and you know full well that Hosni Mubarak is exempt from that rule under the circumstances. It's not rule bending - it's keeping to the spirit of the game. Not the predictability of death, but the unpredictability of death.

[themaninblack]

Windsor, on Jul 27 2011, 10:41 PM, said:

I think you are being unreasonable.

I am very well aware that Mubarak is not yet dead. I am merely making the argument that if he is executed in 2011, points should still be awarded to those who chose him. My point is clear. He was chosen in the spirit of the game. He wasn't chosen because it was believed he would be executed and therefore a guaranteed hit. The fact that he is in the position he is now is down to a twist of fate which we couldn't have seen coming in December 2010.

You know full well what the non-execution rule is for, and you know full well that Hosni Mubarak is exempt from that rule under the circumstances. It's not rule bending - it's keeping to the spirit of the game. Not the predictability of death, but the unpredictability of death.

Yes, and that also includes the unpredictability of how they died as well.

This the rule:

Quote

No executed prisoners. Picks can be accepted if they are on Death Row but die of other causes.

So what happens if I do award points? I'll probably get an email from someone who'll argue that he was executed and thus teams that picked him shouldn't be awarded points. [Edit: In particularly if unnatural points bonus was awarded]
Do you want me to get rid of the 13th day rule as well because it wouldn't be fair (to you) that such and such died on that date and one of yours didn't?
Or that someone died on their birthday and none of your picks did? Both those rules are open to chance. As in some cases the unnatural death rule.

I'll throw you a bone and open this up for discussion as I know it's a contentious rule. My stance is clear as is yours so let's see what others think about it...

[angryGreatness]

I see what Windsor's talking about. Back in December we had no idea Mubarak was at risk for execution, just bladder cancer/old age.

If Mubarak was arrested in say October 2010, then I would say no points should be awarded in an execution. If execution is not predictable, then all's fair. If his execution date is set for 2012, then nobody will get points when he is hung/shot/injected ect.

That being said, we don't even know if Mubarak will live to see his execution, if he even is sentenced to death. Let's put a hold on the issue till this hearing is over.

[Madame Defarge]

A police officer has already been sentenced to death for shooting at protesters even though he insists he only meant to disperse the crowd...so it's pretty certain that Mubarak will meet the same fate.

I picked him for both illness and the ( I thought ) possiblity of assassination, but admittedly I'm biased because he's on my team.

How about some input from from a knowledgeable yet objective source, maybe even a North Egyptian. Anubis?

[Davey Jones' Locker]

Weak and refusing solid food: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-28/muba...g-trial/2813982

[Magere Hein]

themaninblack, on Jul 28 2011, 12:36 AM, said:

This the rule:

Quote

No executed prisoners. Picks can be accepted if they are on Death Row but die of other causes.

So what happens if I do award points? I'll probably get an email from someone who'll argue that he was executed and thus teams that picked him shouldn't be awarded points. [Edit: In particularly if unnatural points bonus was awarded]
Do you want me to get rid of the 13th day rule as well because it wouldn't be fair (to you) that such and such died on that date and one of yours didn't?
Or that someone died on their birthday and none of your picks did? Both those rules are open to chance. As in some cases the unnatural death rule.

I'll throw you a bone and open this up for discussion as I know it's a contentious rule. My stance is clear as is yours so let's see what others think about it...

I already nodded my agreement with Windsor's post above. Before I explain my reasoning I want to state that, obviously, you run the game and you make and apply rules as you see fit.

As I understand it, the purpose of the "no executed prisoners" rule is to exclude picks that are too easy. This rule makes good sense if the candidate has been, or is about to be, sentenced to death, before the beginning of the year for which he or she is picked. In countries like the US this a normal scenario, since the time between a suspect being condemned to death and his or her execution (if it happens at all) is normally counted in years rather than months.

In some countries, say Iran or China, the time between arrest and execution may be a matter of weeks. When, at the time the DDP lists are handed in, there's no reasonable expectation that a candidate is to be executed, and yet in that DDP year his or her life ends up against a wall or on a gurney, a gallows or the stake, the purpose of the rule is defeated and its application seems unfair.

With regard to mr Mubarak, the latter situation applies. At the end of 2010 he was an ill, but firmly seated dictator. No one could reasonably expect him to be overthrown and tried within a few months. As I see it, should he indeed be condemned to death and executed in 2011, it seems unfair to not award DDP points for his death. One may dispute an "unnatural death bonus" in that case, since being executed is almost a natural cause of death for murderous dictators.

In case mr Mubarak lives to see 2012, the "no executed prisoners" rule is, of course, fully in force in that year.

Edit to add: while I had a pint of Guinness in the local Irish bar I did some more thinking on this subject. It occurred to me that there's another reason why in mr M's case the "no executed prisoners" shouldn't apply: on 31 December 2010 he wasn't a prisoner.

regards,
Hein

[Octopus of Odstock]

My opinion, as an ex host and as a current player (although you would've thought differently after this pants year), is Hein probably has it hit on the button.

I was keen to bring it in because I didn't think it was fair, like I did before I was a host to pick people who would be executed and we knew they would be executed - it seems going against the grain of the guesswork involved. I mean it wouldn't be fair for people next year or if the DDP was August-August to pick the two Antiguan murderers - death penalty is likely.

However, I think if points are allowed, it should definitely be a "natural" death as the players involved picked them in the spirit of that... as much as I'm aware anyway.


Personally, I don't think he'll be executed anyway, but I don't fancy his long-term health chances.

[Godot]

Whatever happens to Mubarak I would have thought that rules applying to this year's picks would need to apply and could only be changed for next year. But the Mubarak situation might prompt a tweak to the no executions rule which is a generally sensible rule introduced to stop people picking death row certs. I could understand Windsor's dismay if Mubarak is strung up, shot or whatever before the year end, but as MIB says, that's life.... or not. On the other hand re-tweak, it's very rare that someone is hauled for trial and executed within the same year. Nicolae Ceausescu comes to mind. You'd have been miffed about losing points on him, as Windsor is now, in advance, sitting there in Fraserburgh, scanning the Cairo news bulletins, chewing his fingernails and eating spiders. I made that last bit up.

[DevonDeathTrip]

Stick to your guns, TMIB. Dissent in the ranks should be dealt with using an iron fist and demonstrators demanding change in the regime's policy should be machine gunned if they fail to desist. Mubarak would do exactly the same if he were running the DDP.

[Windsor]

The Health Minister has deemed Mubarak fit to face trial next Wednesday. So it's not looking good for either Mubarak or my points at the moment.

I'm away to the garden to console myself with a spot of comfort eating...

[Paul Bearer]

I'm with Windsor on this one, and as Hein stated we didn't know he'd be a prisoner at the end of 2010.

[Godot]

DevonDeathTrip, on Jul 28 2011, 09:21 PM, said:

Stick to your guns, TMIB. Dissent in the ranks should be dealt with using an iron fist and demonstrators demanding change in the regime's policy should be machine gunned if they fail to desist. Mubarak would do exactly the same if he were running the DDP.

Crawler, you should be docked DDP points for sucking up. I reckon 50 would be reasonable.

[time]

Godot, on Jul 29 2011, 03:01 PM, said:

DevonDeathTrip, on Jul 28 2011, 09:21 PM, said:

Stick to your guns, TMIB. Dissent in the ranks should be dealt with using an iron fist and demonstrators demanding change in the regime's policy should be machine gunned if they fail to desist. Mubarak would do exactly the same if he were running the DDP.

Crawler, you should be docked DDP points for sucking up. I reckon 50 would be reasonable.

If he's docked 50, points, can I have them, because I picked my team based on the expectation that they would all die within the year. Here we are, nearly 7/12ths through the year and not one hit. Its not within the spirit of the game!

For what its worth, my opinion is that TMIB is absolutely correct - the rules state that the executed earn no points - no riders or exclusions about whether they are already on death row exist, so [Alan Sugar mode]with regret[/Alan Sugar mode], no points if he gets executed.

However, Windsor has raised a point that needs addressing should the situation actually arise in the future, and a simple amendment to the rules, disallowing anyone already sentenced to death but allowing anyone who wasn't (at the start of the contest) should suffice.

From next year.

But, as has already been said, its TMIB's decision to make, and he's made it.

[Windsor]

time, on Jul 29 2011, 03:30 PM, said:

If he's docked 50, points, can I have them, because I picked my team based on the expectation that they would all die within the year. Here we are, nearly 7/12ths through the year and not one hit. Its not within the spirit of the game!

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE.
Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE.

[time]

Windsor, on Jul 29 2011, 05:15 PM, said:

time, on Jul 29 2011, 03:30 PM, said:

If he's docked 50, points, can I have them, because I picked my team based on the expectation that they would all die within the year. Here we are, nearly 7/12ths through the year and not one hit. Its not within the spirit of the game!

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE.
Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE.

I agree that your candidate will be dead, but, if he's executed, he will have died by circumstance not entitling you to any points, so, harsh as it may be, you shouldn't have any points.

[Windsor]

time, on Jul 29 2011, 11:55 PM, said:

Windsor, on Jul 29 2011, 05:15 PM, said:

time, on Jul 29 2011, 03:30 PM, said:

If he's docked 50, points, can I have them, because I picked my team based on the expectation that they would all die within the year. Here we are, nearly 7/12ths through the year and not one hit. Its not within the spirit of the game!

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE.
Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE.

I agree that your candidate will be dead, but, if he's executed, he will have died by circumstance not entitling you to any points, so, harsh as it may be, you shouldn't have any points.

Under the circumstances I should have my points because when I chose him back in December there was no hint of an execution. Everybody knows why the no execution rule was brought into play, and everybody knows that it doesn't apply to Mubarak's circumstances due to the timeline. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if 'one of the gang' had chosen him.

Deep down I'm sure that you all understand why I'd be entitled to the points. It really depends on how long you all plan on acting like a bunch of arse licking plebs, desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser.

[Rotten Ali]

OK - so I don't have the old guy on my team and hence I don't really have a vested interest.

As far as I can see, the rule was put in to stop most teams looking like "No Noose is Good Noose".
In a way that idea was inspired, but it departed from the spirit of the game. In the 2007 game the said team had 15 unique entries but got just 6 hits. The thrust of the game has to be, "to spot latent talent in the already widely famous to curl up their toes within a period of 12 months".

I fall into the "give points for executed persons" should they not be noted (and that includes being involved in serious court cases) as being under such specific threat at the turn of the current year. After such imprisonment and death sentence having been handed down then such a person would not be valid during the following year for points should the noose be used.

I viewed Mubarak as worthy of getting into my 2012 DDP team on health grounds. But who could have known at the start of the year the number one regional strong guy was second in line to be faced by the Arab Spring revolt? I say if the guy swings this year then the points should be awarded including those for the un-natural death bonus. But not the bonus one for a death on the 13th, since this could aid a rebel team who picked Mubarak and could now be sitting in judgement!.

[time]

Windsor, on Jul 30 2011, 12:13 AM, said:

time, on Jul 29 2011, 11:55 PM, said:

Windsor, on Jul 29 2011, 05:15 PM, said:

time, on Jul 29 2011, 03:30 PM, said:

If he's docked 50, points, can I have them, because I picked my team based on the expectation that they would all die within the year. Here we are, nearly 7/12ths through the year and not one hit. Its not within the spirit of the game!

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE.
Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE.

I agree that your candidate will be dead, but, if he's executed, he will have died by circumstance not entitling you to any points, so, harsh as it may be, you shouldn't have any points.

Under the circumstances I should have my points because when I chose him back in December there was no hint of an execution. Everybody knows why the no execution rule was brought into play, and everybody knows that it doesn't apply to Mubarak's circumstances due to the timeline. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if 'one of the gang' had chosen him.

Deep down I'm sure that you all understand why I'd be entitled to the points. It really depends on how long you all plan on acting like a bunch of arse licking plebs, desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser.

I understand perfectly why you think you should be entitled to the points. Do you understand why I think you shouldn't?

As for being an 'arse licking pleb desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser', why would you even think this? I don't know, or even care, if I'm on his good side or not (if I am, its not helped me thus far), and I'm not even sure anyone has demonstrated any arse-licking (except maybe DDT, and I'm sure that was meant tongue in cheek (oo-er!)).

[Windsor]

time, on Jul 30 2011, 12:37 AM, said:

Windsor, on Jul 30 2011, 12:13 AM, said:

time, on Jul 29 2011, 11:55 PM, said:

Windsor, on Jul 29 2011, 05:15 PM, said:

time, on Jul 29 2011, 03:30 PM, said:

If he's docked 50, points, can I have them, because I picked my team based on the expectation that they would all die within the year. Here we are, nearly 7/12ths through the year and not one hit. Its not within the spirit of the game!

The difference is that if executed my candidate would be DEAD, whereas yours would still be ALIVE.
Thus I should get points because my candidate was DEAD, and you shouldn't because yours are still ALIVE.

I agree that your candidate will be dead, but, if he's executed, he will have died by circumstance not entitling you to any points, so, harsh as it may be, you shouldn't have any points.

Under the circumstances I should have my points because when I chose him back in December there was no hint of an execution. Everybody knows why the no execution rule was brought into play, and everybody knows that it doesn't apply to Mubarak's circumstances due to the timeline. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if 'one of the gang' had chosen him.

Deep down I'm sure that you all understand why I'd be entitled to the points. It really depends on how long you all plan on acting like a bunch of arse licking plebs, desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser.

I understand perfectly why you think you should be entitled to the points. Do you understand why I think you shouldn't?

As for being an 'arse licking pleb desperate to stay on the good side of the DDP organiser', why would you even think this? I don't know, or even care, if I'm on his good side or not (if I am, its not helped me thus far), and I'm not even sure anyone has demonstrated any arse-licking (except maybe DDT, and I'm sure that was meant tongue in cheek (oo-er!)).

You don't think I should get the points because you evidently don't understand the nature of the 'no executions' rule - the same problem which afflicts the current organiser. Having read his latest update, it doesn't look like he is going to alter the until the 2012 competition.

As for my earlier rant, I was trying to deflect the votes against me by suggesting there is a conspiracy against me. It's not working.