Topics for the Parody Challenge

[Guest Edgy DC]

We need to build some consensus.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The other rule change that was put on the table involved both combatants working with the same subject.

[Guest sharpie]

I'm for a wide range expanded beyond players with both players working on the same subject. Not sure that is quite a category. If this doesn't work we can always go back to a different method next year.

I voted for the second option but I'm not sure that is the one I should have voted for. Maybe I want the last option.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think consensus is strong on both players hitting the same theme.

[Guest sharpie]

What if we did it by rounds. For instance, Round 1 could be players; Round 2 could be managers, coaches and broadcasters; Round 3 could be seasons, etc.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Eh, it's got a game-show appeal, but I don't think we'll know how many rounds we'll have until we see the playing field.

What I do know is that the broad field is winning.

Keep in mind that you are all agreeing that you're ready to go toe-to-toe with someone for all the marbles with Billy Cowan as your mutual subject.

Or Jiggs McDonald!

[Guest sharpie]

I see great potential in Jiggs McDonald.

[Willets Point]

Edgy DC wrote: We need to build some consensus.

Consensus and majority-wins voting are actually antithetical to one another.

[G-Fafif]

What were the previous parameters-- that is, how did this work in the past? I was amused by many of the parodies last year but was mystified as to how the topics were arrived at.

[Guest Edgy DC]

We take the 500 top Mets and assign them random numbers.

You pick five numbers and get five Mets from which to base your parody.

If you are fortunate enough to win, you get your remaining list enhanced by the four remaining names on the list of your defeated opponent. So your list goes longer with each round you advance.