The Built Ford Tough™ 2010 Deadpool Selection Show, brought to you by Tostitos®

[Gil Gunderson]

I propose that for a given slot on your list, you can select more than one person so long as they are related/connected to one another in a logical fashion. Points would be awarded for each individual separately. However, points would only be awarded if every person specified for the slot died (AND not OR logic). And the slot bonus should only be awarded once. This would provide for additional risk/reward behavior.

I'll provide an example:

Powen selected the entire cast of Jersey Shore--presumably, the eight housemates-- for his #2 slot.

Let's say the cast dies in a housefire. There are eight cast members; all are in their twenties (Age Bonus: 9); nobody else has selected any of them (Pick Penalty: 0). Thus each of the eight cast members carries a bonus of +9.

8 members * 9 bonus per member + slot bonus (9) = 81

Now, like I said, it needs to use AND logic to encourage risk/reward behavior. So if DJ Pauly D is down the street filling his Valtrex script when the house goes up in flames, then Powen receives no points. Every person specified has to die for any points to be awarded.*


*Note that this would be incentive for Powen to pack his favorite balaclava and Louisville Slugger and pay DJ Pauly D a visit before the year runs out.

I propose that you can't propose new rules 1 day into the fricken contest.

I vote to strike the remarks from the distinguished gentleman from ... who are you again?

Also, it would only affect Powen under an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, but it would be something to consider for next year.

The motion is tabled until December then.

[CT III]

I propose that for a given slot on your list, you can select more than one person so long as they are related/connected to one another in a logical fashion. Points would be awarded for each individual separately. However, points would only be awarded if every person specified for the slot died (AND not OR logic). And the slot bonus should only be awarded once. This would provide for additional risk/reward behavior.

I'll provide an example:

Powen selected the entire cast of Jersey Shore--presumably, the eight housemates-- for his #2 slot.

Let's say the cast dies in a housefire. There are eight cast members; all are in their twenties (Age Bonus: 9); nobody else has selected any of them (Pick Penalty: 0). Thus each of the eight cast members carries a bonus of +9.

8 members * 9 bonus per member + slot bonus (9) = 81

Now, like I said, it needs to use AND logic to encourage risk/reward behavior. So if DJ Pauly D is down the street filling his Valtrex script when the house goes up in flames, then Powen receives no points. Every person specified has to die for any points to be awarded.*


*Note that this would be incentive for Powen to pack his favorite balaclava and Louisville Slugger and pay DJ Pauly D a visit before the year runs out.

I propose that you can't propose new rules 1 day into the fricken contest.

I vote to strike the remarks from the distinguished gentleman from ... who are you again?

Also, it would only affect Powen under an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, but it would be something to consider for next year.

And I find it extremely suspicious that you want to change a rule just to benefit Powen.  I think the two of you may be related, or at least in cahoots.

[powen01]

I propose that for a given slot on your list, you can select more than one person so long as they are related/connected to one another in a logical fashion. Points would be awarded for each individual separately. However, points would only be awarded if every person specified for the slot died (AND not OR logic). And the slot bonus should only be awarded once. This would provide for additional risk/reward behavior.

I'll provide an example:

Powen selected the entire cast of Jersey Shore--presumably, the eight housemates-- for his #2 slot.

Let's say the cast dies in a housefire. There are eight cast members; all are in their twenties (Age Bonus: 9); nobody else has selected any of them (Pick Penalty: 0). Thus each of the eight cast members carries a bonus of +9.

8 members * 9 bonus per member + slot bonus (9) = 81

Now, like I said, it needs to use AND logic to encourage risk/reward behavior. So if DJ Pauly D is down the street filling his Valtrex script when the house goes up in flames, then Powen receives no points. Every person specified has to die for any points to be awarded.*


*Note that this would be incentive for Powen to pack his favorite balaclava and Louisville Slugger and pay DJ Pauly D a visit before the year runs out.

I propose that you can't propose new rules 1 day into the fricken contest.

I vote to strike the remarks from the distinguished gentleman from ... who are you again?

Also, it would only affect Powen under an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, but it would be something to consider for next year.

And I find it extremely suspicious that you want to change a rule just to benefit Powen.  I think the two of you may be related, or at least in cahoots.

Dig too deep into how the illuminati runs this dead pool and you're going to end up on my list for next year.

[flannj]

I propose that for a given slot on your list, you can select more than one person so long as they are related/connected to one another in a logical fashion. Points would be awarded for each individual separately. However, points would only be awarded if every person specified for the slot died (AND not OR logic). And the slot bonus should only be awarded once. This would provide for additional risk/reward behavior.

I'll provide an example:

Powen selected the entire cast of Jersey Shore--presumably, the eight housemates-- for his #2 slot.

Let's say the cast dies in a housefire. There are eight cast members; all are in their twenties (Age Bonus: 9); nobody else has selected any of them (Pick Penalty: 0). Thus each of the eight cast members carries a bonus of +9.

8 members * 9 bonus per member + slot bonus (9) = 81

Now, like I said, it needs to use AND logic to encourage risk/reward behavior. So if DJ Pauly D is down the street filling his Valtrex script when the house goes up in flames, then Powen receives no points. Every person specified has to die for any points to be awarded.*


*Note that this would be incentive for Powen to pack his favorite balaclava and Louisville Slugger and pay DJ Pauly D a visit before the year runs out.

I propose that you can't propose new rules 1 day into the fricken contest.

I vote to strike the remarks from the distinguished gentleman from ... who are you again?

Also, it would only affect Powen under an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, but it would be something to consider for next year.

And I find it extremely suspicious that you want to change a rule just to benefit Powen.  I think the two of you may be related, or at least in cahoots.

Dig too deep into how the illuminati runs this dead pool and you're going to end up on my list for next year.

You better mean this or else Paul is going to call you on it.

[powen01]

I propose that for a given slot on your list, you can select more than one person so long as they are related/connected to one another in a logical fashion. Points would be awarded for each individual separately. However, points would only be awarded if every person specified for the slot died (AND not OR logic). And the slot bonus should only be awarded once. This would provide for additional risk/reward behavior.

I'll provide an example:

Powen selected the entire cast of Jersey Shore--presumably, the eight housemates-- for his #2 slot.

Let's say the cast dies in a housefire. There are eight cast members; all are in their twenties (Age Bonus: 9); nobody else has selected any of them (Pick Penalty: 0). Thus each of the eight cast members carries a bonus of +9.

8 members * 9 bonus per member + slot bonus (9) = 81

Now, like I said, it needs to use AND logic to encourage risk/reward behavior. So if DJ Pauly D is down the street filling his Valtrex script when the house goes up in flames, then Powen receives no points. Every person specified has to die for any points to be awarded.*


*Note that this would be incentive for Powen to pack his favorite balaclava and Louisville Slugger and pay DJ Pauly D a visit before the year runs out.

I propose that you can't propose new rules 1 day into the fricken contest.

I vote to strike the remarks from the distinguished gentleman from ... who are you again?

Also, it would only affect Powen under an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, but it would be something to consider for next year.

And I find it extremely suspicious that you want to change a rule just to benefit Powen.  I think the two of you may be related, or at least in cahoots.

Dig too deep into how the illuminati runs this dead pool and you're going to end up on my list for next year.

You better mean this or else Paul is going to call you on it.

How dare you speak His name.

[Kermit IV]

I'm surprised two others picked Artie, but it might be a wise choice.

[Kermit IV]

Ed McMahon is DEAD???

I suck at this.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Okay, so Chuck—the same guy, mind you, who posted this about a month ago:

In.

Entries due by 11:59 PM on 12/31/09.

—just sent me his dead pool picks this morning.

Add me or ignore me at your discretion.

As always, choice 'b' is rather tempting. But I think I'll just put the question to you guys.

What will it be, Desipio?

[Pre]

In, but -5 points for lateness

[Yeti]

Okay, so Chuck—the same guy, mind you, who posted this about a month ago:

In.

Entries due by 11:59 PM on 12/31/09.

—just sent me his dead pool picks this morning.

Add me or ignore me at your discretion.

As always, choice 'b' is rather tempting. But I think I'll just put the question to you guys.

What will it be, Desipio?

In, but pays for even more drinks than he did last year at Shitty's.

[Richard Chuggar]

Okay, so Chuck—the same guy, mind you, who posted this about a month ago:

In.

Entries due by 11:59 PM on 12/31/09.

—just sent me his dead pool picks this morning.

Add me or ignore me at your discretion.

As always, choice 'b' is rather tempting. But I think I'll just put the question to you guys.

What will it be, Desipio?

In, but pays for even more drinks than he did last year at Shitty's.

If we can turn in late entries, I want in then.  Didn't get a chance to do one over the break.

[Chuck to Chuck]

In, but pays for even more drinks than he did last year at Shitty's.

Is that possible?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Okay, so Chuck—the same guy, mind you, who posted this about a month ago:

In.

Entries due by 11:59 PM on 12/31/09.

—just sent me his dead pool picks this morning.

Add me or ignore me at your discretion.

As always, choice 'b' is rather tempting. But I think I'll just put the question to you guys.

What will it be, Desipio?

In, but pays for even more drinks than he did last year at Shitty's.

If we can turn in late entries, I want in then.  Didn't get a chance to do one over the break.

This slope is getting slippery.

(Notracist.)

[PenFoe]

In, but -5 points for lateness

Seconded.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

In, but -5 points for lateness

Seconded.

-5 for lateness for Chuck, -10 for the second person to submit late picks (be it TDubbs or anyone else), -15 for the third, and so on?