How about an intermediate step? Keep everything the same as it is currently (including random shots), but change the time limit in tournament rounds to be the chess clock to stop DQ-DQs. A very small change which doesn't end the debate on what to do about random shots, but an improvement we can all agree on I hope?

Now we've got that out of the way, back to the first post! Should we change the random shot to an automatic foul (or something else altogether)?

Personally I still prefer a random shot to automatic foul, but I still can't shake the feeling that there's something that could beat both of them.

A combined shot time limit/chess clock for tournaments would be excellent, as previously discussed and agreed in other threads.



I still believe that if there has to be a change, it should simply be to give the opponent the option to take the turn, or let the random shot go.

Awarding a foul when no foul has been commited can never be right no matter how you look at it.

It's a sad day when funkypool has succumbed to the world financial crisis and is looking to laying off Jim and Steve (the RSG guys).


I to believe that if a player does not have their shot in the required time, then they should not receive any benefit. However spinner, I do take on board that it may be out of their control sometimes

I agree they are two different things, but all I was thinking is match time could replace shot time, as long as using a chess clock so each player has their own time pool.

I agree it's not really desirable though, since it also adds pressure to finish the game in a certain number of shots.

I was referring to the current average.

Not taking your shot within the allotted time IS a foul.

If you need to see it in writing in the game rules to agree to that, then please just add it so we can move on

We all know that it's not necessarily an intention foul, but look at it from the other side... Regardless of why the shot has not been taken, should that EVER be the other player's problem? Of course not!

how about this for a wild alternative suggestion

the random shot stays - however it doesnt get announced as such. That way the game continues and the opponent would never know for sure whether it was a random or not. What you dont know cant hurt you

Well, you would still know with 99% certainty where it's random or not - most of all because of timing, secondly because of the outcome. All ideas are good, but I fail to see this one solving anything

Sometimes you have to think outside the box

In those 99% the outcome is going to be in your favour anyway because the random is a foul or leaves you in a good position. Those arent the issue. The issue is where the random shot favours the timed out player.

If a random flukes its own ball you might guess it was the random but you would never know for sure if it wasnt announced.

I was in favour of making a time out an automatic foul originally, but now I'm not. The fact is the game is allowing a valid attempt at a shot to be made in every circumstance. Many games have autoplay features that will continue on your behalf whilst you are busy. I am actually surprised no one has ever asked for that feature on funkypool.

Not taking your shot within the allotted time IS a foul.

Not true because the random is taking the shot on your behalf. As I said before the random is no different to me going off to the kitchen to get a drink and someone else grabbing the mouse and playing the shot on my behalf. In both circumstances I havent taken a shot within the allotted time. You cant morally make one an automatic foul and the other not an automatic foul.

Take the announcement away - simple solution to introduce for nick

There is a major difference. By letting someone take the shot for you, the shot is performed legally. By letting the time run out you break a rule, specifically the time allowed to perform your shot.

Giving the timed out player even a remote chance of getting out of it at the expense of the opponents is just plain wrong.

i think you need to think that statement through - if letting someone else play the shot for you is legal you are opening up a whole can of worms

Hmm, in that case I'm not reading you correctly at all... I thought you were talking about having others that are physically present to take your shots while you're away (for whatever reasons). Like your family or similar.

No matter how many cans of wriggling little things that might be opening, there's nothing in the world anyone could ever do to stop or control it, so fail to see why make a fuss over that.

Allowing other players, remotely over the net, is something completely different and never been remotely thinkable at all.

I am not a big fan of the random shot in honesty. I play poker a lot at pokerstars and when someone disconnects, extra time is added to the players time before his hand is folded. I believe a similar system could work here, by which if a disconnection happens, then extra time is added for the player to regain connection, if he doesn't gain it in a suitable amount of time and play his shot, then an automatic foul. If there is no disconnection and he does not play the shot, then an automatic foul here too. While this is not ideal, there are no other alternatives... disconnection cannot be helped, but if you're busy doing something else, then don't bother playing online pool, but if something comes up suddenly, then i'm sure you won't mind losing a game of online pool to adhere to it.

I think we can learn a lot by the system implemented by poker sites and this seems the best solution to me. Game clocks as opposed to shot clocks make it a speed game.

Exactly - whether its someone else playing for you or a computer playing for you - the fact is IT IS NOT YOU. If you accept one as allowable then you must accept the other - failing that you are discriminating unfairly against someone on their own who has noone to 'help them out' in their hour of need!!

The fact is you have no knowledge of what is happening at the other end of the internet connection so just accept a shot being played against you and dont worry whether it was your opponent, his mate, his granny, his pet piglet or indeed his computer - just get on with the game.



...and funkypool is similar to online poker in that if you time out (time out being 3 randoms or 90 seconds I think) you do in effect 'fold' because you get booted from the game.

Clarifying my position

Chess clocks should be the default for tournament games. I am a fairly quick player but there are often times where you wish you had a bit longer to think about a tricky shot or position. Also takes away any debate over a timed out double dq - there wont be any! Maybe keep a couple of tournaments to the current shot clock rules if thats what people want.

Chess clock format should also be an option for all other games therefore you have the choice whether to play under those conditions or not.

For any games not played using the chess clock format keep the random shot generator as it is now as it maintains the integrity of the game without interfering with the rules.

Here we disagree. The game requires someone at your computer, using the mouse, to perform a shot within the time limit. Who that person is, who "belongs" there and who doesn't, is no concern to the game.

No shot being taken at all is a completely different issue, and currently punished with a random shot. Which is far too lenient and too often (more than never) ends up favoring the slow player at the expense of others.

I agree with everything in that post, except this. Which is what this topic was all about.

Replace the random shot for an automatic foul and it's perfect.

The game actually simply requires a shot to be played to continue - it doesnt matter who plays it.

Since we agree that the system cannot differentiate who actually is playing it, it therefore makes no difference whether it's the pc or a.n.other in terms of maintaining play.

To me this is no different to the difficulties surrounding multi-using - the rules say it cant be done yet its accepted because its impossible to enforce. (even if the examples of it are becoming even more blatant to most!!)

The rules also state that I must be the user of my account name which, by definition, must mean I am responsible for all the shots. Since you obviously cannot enforce that, and a shot played by my mate instead of me is not a foul, then if I choose to let someone else play the shots on my behalf or if I choose to let the pc play a random on my behalf is my choice. You just cant say one is allowed and one isnt.

Have you ever even heard of diversity? You are discriminating against a whole group of people by giving a potential advantage to those that are not alone.

There's no difference in terms of driving the game forward, no, but there's a massive difference in principle of whether or not you deserve the possibility of the shot turning out positive.

Multi-using is mostly considered one user using multiple accounts for different purposes, most of which are negative.

It has nothing to do with letting your brother/mother/granddad etc take a shot for you while logged in. Although this is not encouraged either, lets be a tad realistic here. You are absolutely never allowed to hand out the login info of your account, and all actions take on it is your responsibility, but that's not the issue here either.