COUNT BACK!

if the time runs out - then decide the game by whoever is currently leading the match.

if a tie - then who ever has potted the most balls during the match

if a tie - who ever has potted the most balls in the current frame.

if a tie - who ever won the first frame.

i don't know about the last one, i think count back will get to the first one maybe second, but the count back can't go to the winner of 1st frame!

well you need something that can not posibly end in a tie...and if it cant be done after 3 count backs, then what else are you going to count?

otherwise you can decide the winner on who arrived to the game room first.

I don't like this principle.

It would allow the player with the best track record leading up to the current point in time to stall for a default win - which would get exploited like mad.

No, keep it simple: The slower player takes the fall if the time runs out - something a chess clock solves easily, fairly and perfectly.

Edited at 11:45 Sun 7/06/09 (BST)

chess clock, i think is the way to go!

Let the chatroom vote on who goes through

People who play for a draw suck, I have seen it a few times, some people hate losing

Actually I did it myself once to annoy somebody, I had chances to win and didn't take them purely to be annoying, I ended up losing and never did it again

If you put it through the chat room 40% of them would pm you saying asl and ask what you're wearing before giving a reasonable answer

Lmao..

well that means that you have to get off to a good start and keep it like that for half an hour...which is difficult for some.

chess clock would be a good idea IF someone had an invention for a zero lag connection!

Count back would only be good for one thing, people wouldn't go for Golden breaks as much in 8 ball games. The only one thing that frustrates me is losing to someone whether in a tournament or ranked by a golden break as it requires no skill whatsoever considering about 75% of the site (including myself) know where to put the cue ball and where to aim for a successful break. I dont think there is a way we could counter act this to be honest its one of those things that happen very rarely and i beleive at the moment nick has bigger better priorities.

As long as we have any kind of time limitation for a game, a laggy connection or computer will always be a disadvantage. Sad but true - nothing can really change that, short of removing the time limit all together.

Now, the question is, is it fair to let such problems drag the other player down with you?

Under the current system, you should never assume to have more than 50% ("your half") of the time total anyway. The other player may be just as slow as you are. Which means that a chess clock system, where each player's pool is half the total game time we currently use, would be no better and no worse for the laggy players.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the time allotted per player under a chess clock system could be set higher than half of the current time, simply because in average, few games consists of two real slow players. On top of that, most players will feel more pressure to move things forward when they are spending "their own" time rather than a shared total. So in the end, the time limits could be a lot more roomy than they currently are, and still serve the same job in terms of tournament progress.

Edited at 08:17 Mon 8/06/09 (BST)

Good points by all, and I hate to be the one to ask people to stick to topic, but remember: what started this off was someone playing for a draw, not two players both nonchalantly ending up DQ-DQ. What do we think of or do with players would try to take the other player out so unfairly?

should be able to report them: its deliberately trying to disqualify their opponent.

maybe not a booting or ban from the entire game maybe something like a week suspension from tournaments

not a bad idea zant

Problem is that spending 100% of your shot time on every shot isn't in any way cheating.

Nor is playing snookers.

So despite how poor sportsmanship this indeed is, nothing of it is in fact against any rules.

The system (or in this case the game) is the problem here, not the players.

In a large multi player environment you get lame players. Lots of them. No matter how many rules you make and how many of the bad seeds you weed out there will always be others.

The only real, lasting solution to these problems is to remove the possibility - ruling out all the trouble makers in a single blow. In short, change the time system to DQ the slow/stalling player rather than both. Problem solved, once and for all.

True... Still, as it is, there are one of two bad seeds as you describe them...