dyť to není nic extra složitýho...
Darwin Awards: History and Ruleshttps://darwinawards.com/rules/All humans who meet the following criteria are eligible to win:
* Reproduction *
Out of the gene pool: dead or sterile.
The existence of offspring, though potentially deleterious to the gene pool, does not disqualify a nominee. Children inherit only half of each parent's genetic material and thus have their own chance to survive or snuff themselves. If, for instance, the offspring has inherited the "Play With Combustibles" gene, but also has inherited the "Use Caution When..." gene, then she is a potential innovator and asset to the human race. Therefore, each nominee is judged based on whether or not she has removed her own genes, without consideration to the number of offspring or, in the case of an elderly winner, the likelihood of producing more offspring.
* Self-Selection *
Cause one's own demise.
The candidate's own gross ineptitude must be the cause of the incident that earns him the nomination. A hapless bystander done in by a heavy anvil dropped from a skyscraper is merely suffering from bad luck. If you are smashed by the anvil that you rigged above your own balcony to kill those squawking pigeons, then you are a Darwin Awards contender.
A tourist trampled to death by a rampaging bull in a parking lot is experiencing bad luck. If you are gored to death during the "Running of the Bulls" while riding naked in a shopping cart piloted by your drunken friend, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Some feel that a person who intentionally attempts to win a Darwin Award, and succeeds, is by default a perfect candidate for a Darwin Award. However, readers should remember that a Darwin Award is a dubious honor, and we discourage anyone from intentionally attempting to join these illustrious ranks.
* Excellence *
Sublimely idiotic misapplication of judgment.
It takes a phenomenal failure of common sense to earn a Darwin Award. Common idiocies like Russian Roulette, not wearing a lifejacket, sleeping with a smoldering cigarette: such are not sufficient to win this dubious distinction. OTOH playing Russian Roulette with land mines(ref) jumping on a whale carcass in a shark feeding frenzy(ref) or sneaking a cigarette while hanging off the back of a speeding bus(ref)...just might win you a Darwin Award.
Those who participate in extreme sports are not automatically eligible, as they knowingly assume an increased risk of death. They are, in a sense, correctly applying their judgment that the entertainment is worth the risk. However bizarre the sport, an additional misapplication of judgment must be present in order for the deceased to qualify for a Darwin Award.
I appreciate that parents are responsible for raising their offspring and teaching them to make responsible decisions. Therefore children under sixteen are not eligible to win a Darwin Award(2). However, a few have been included as cautionary nominees when their actions can be considered foolhardy by even their young peers.
* Maturity *
Capable of sound judgment.
Humans are generally capable of sound judgment--except those with mental handicaps that render them unable to fully comprehend the ramifications of their actions. A vociferous majority argues that CHILDREN also fit into this category, citing the vast gulf between ignorance and stupidity.
* Veracity *
The event must be true.
Reputable newspaper articles, confirmed television reports, and responsible eyewitnesses are considered valid sources. Urban Legends are not eligible, but they remain in the archive as wonderful illustrations of heroic, albeit mythical, martyrs to the good of the gene pool.
The nominee is eligible the year of discovery. Last year's winner of the hide and seek contest, recently unearthed as a skeleton wedged in a narrow well, is eligible to win this year's prize.