Sorry mate but I aint going to say I agree when I don't

Maybe you need to come up with a better idea

I didnt exactly come up with this one, poolbird did. I just agree with it, and posted it.

No, they didnt run out of time, but they did fail to take their shot.
and yes, every other time someone fails to take their shot a random penalty is done. Hence, how i came that, it was the question: "why should it be a foul if no actual foul was committed ?". I responded to that post already btw (and answered that question).
To answer your 2nd question, I'd ask if someone could take there place (not possible here).

Edited at 00:30 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

They failed to take their shot because they left the room and like any other game on here they lose the game, they don't get a random shot penalty, you can't give someone a foul against them if they have already lost due to leaving the room.
Why would someone want to take their place when they have one life left and no shot on ?, what if everyone says no thank you ?

Funny you should mention every other game on here, did you see this?:
"Also, in every other game, when someone leaves the room, noone left in the room may suffer for it will they? They automatically win. Even in killer, it happens that way if there are only 2 players left.
Of course that's not always possible in killer, but you have to admit, this direction being taken is completely different than other games types. Even a different direction in the same game, killer, even though it's the same situation only with a different amount of players."

Considering this having been pointed out, I can't imagine you wanting people to compare it to other games, doesn't help your case.

Edited at 00:30 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

In fairness been, it doesn't really matter. it's just the way it goes. whether or not it wasn't your shot, there is always the possibility that you yourself could have been left in the very same position.
harsh this may seem, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I get your point of view. it's the same for everyone

You're entitled to your opinion, no offence taken

ab and chris are entitled to theirs as well, just couldn't help but notice the only time they post thier opinions about an idea I've posted, it's in disagreement.

I know it's the same for us all, could happen to anyone, but even ab agreed it can be unfair (although he still wasn't in favor of this).

To be sure, is that a vote against any change, or are you saying you don't care either way?

Apologies for disagreeing with you.

What would be your view if you were following a player that decided to leave the room for any reason and the shot you were now inheriting was an easy pot or an easy black etc?

Or if instead of that easy shot, a random shot takes place and now puts you into an impossible position from which you can't escape thereby losing a life or losing the game. Is that more acceptable?

If a player leaves the game room at any point during the game you inherit their position even when it's several shots away from being your turn so why should it be any different when it happens at the point that it now is your turn?

Edited by forum moderator chris, at 09:41 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

nah been, only thing I would do is give the player playing after a foul, the option to put the previous player back in.

your thing is same for all and I get that it can be unfair, but that's just the way it is

Is there anyway when someone leaves abruptly or gets disconnected can the time clock for the following player have say an extra 10 seconds added to the already pre set time?

I know a few on here who play with no sound so pretty difficult to decipher the countdown as it is and seen players lose a life for not recognizing/realising were now their turn.

As for any random foul should someone leave, as annoying and unfortunate as it can be, its just one of those things you have to accept. Some could leave for connection issues so difficult to determine real reason. What I would suggest is if you start a game then regardless of entering a tournament you finish what you have started, could be a way restrict any 'joining' a tournament 'during' an active game. Might reduce those leaving on them grounds?

That's simply the other side of the coin, would be lucky for me, but unfair on everyone else still in the game.
Yes, it is. I'd much rather lose because of a random shot snookering me, than because someone else was about to lose, and chose to 'share the death' by leaving the game without taking their shot.

Their position maybe, not their shot!
and someone else has inherited their shot, a shot that wasn't meant for them to shoot.
This isn't just about when it happens to me, it's about when it happens to anyone.

I know you don't mind going out on a limb when you try and argue down my opinions, but please, don't climb out so far as to confuse the issue being discussed.

Edited at 12:55 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

Here's another thought, on the occasions the person leaving didn't do it out of malice (like losing connection or taking an invite), it's already a random thing, what's the harm in doing a random shot? The result would be random as well.
and it would stop the intentional 'sharing of death'

have to agree with this and as said before killer a very popular game on the site so there must be a way of a few tweaks here and there to improve the site we keep hearing about so much

So you are promoting an idea that could benefit just the one player at the expense of the rest as opposed to how it is currently which (in your opinion) could be unfair on one player but does not affect the rest?



So you, the same person that promotes 'accuracy' everywhere is promoting a change that actually introduces a random shot into a game where there is no need for one?



Do you not see how weak that argument is? The shot was there for someone following to play. That is how Killer works. Just because a player decides to concede his involvement in the game for whatever reason does not change that. That is a fairly basic and logical concept.

I think you've become confused again while climbing out on your limb.
The way it is now, and the way I propose, both "could benefit just the one player at the expense of the rest". You pointed out how this could happen the way it is now in your question I was responding to (top of this post). and yeah it could also happen the way I propose, if the random shot opened up an 8ball
At the end of your post there you said: "could be unfair on one player but does not affect the rest?"....
That's not even possible, if something unfair or unlucky happens to one player, it benefits the rest.
This also, can happen using either option, but at least if it happens using my option it'll be due to an ul random shot. If it happens the ways things are, it could be (and often is) because someone maliciously, unsportingly quit the game.

You're out so far on that limb, you're not even making sense anymore.

For those last 2 points I did read,


I've pointed out the need/why it would be more fair, and more fun.

As far as weak arguments go, I thought that pointed out pretty well how weak yours had been.
The shot has already obtained it's goal though, its not like I'm asking to render their shot invalid, someone 'died' already.

Edited at 15:47 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

There is no confusion on my part. A player has played a great (or maybe fluke safety). You are now trying to introduce something that negates (or even limits) the effect of that in some way.

The only player potentially benefitting from your change is the incumbent player. Those being potentially hindered by your change are the person that left the position and everyone else in the game other than the incumbent player.

As it stands currently no one is potentially benefitting other than rightly the person that played the safety. The position has been left and they should rightly expect someone to play from it. If it can take out more than one player then so be it. It is still a 100% accurate position not introducing any element of luck or fluke at all. I'm sorry if you view logical arguments as going out on a limb. But it is difficult to understand why someone who wants accurate outcomes then wants to introduce random shots where absolutely none are required.

Nothing that has happened in your scenario is anything that could not happen in a real game (as ab rightly has pointed out before) yet you are trying to move away from that and create a 'false' situation.

Edited at 14:48 Mon 05/05/14 (BST)

But you are confused, your question showed that, it had flawed logic, here's where I pointed that out already:
"At the end of your post there you said: "could be unfair on one player but does not affect the rest?"....
That's not even possible, if something unfair or unlucky happens to one player, it benefits the rest."

then you said:
"As it stands currently no one is potentially benefitting other than rightly the person that played the safety."
^ this statement too, is absolutely wrong, you've shown the same flawed logic again, as if you didn't even try to understand my post.

limit, yes, but explain how doing a random shot would "negate" the safety if the player it was intended for has 'died' already. Explained already how it doesn't here:

"The shot has already obtained it's goal though, its not like I'm asking to render their shot invalid, someone 'died' already."

but I guess you chose not to understand that either

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're being hindered, they're just losing an undeserved benefit. Noone in the game expected the safety to take 2 lives when it was made.