I know I mistakenly said it is once on this thread, but I don't think its currently considered a foul exactly. It's just called random shot time limit penalty, or something like that.
Not saying it should or shouldn't be different, still undecided.
Make a thread about it I say.

5 in favor, 7 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

2 against, 4 if you count hippesville and chris, who aren't against change, but would do something different than a random shot

Edited at 20:54 Tue 06/05/14 (BST)

yup been im in favour although mentally i know its not likely to be implemented

What do you think funkypoolers? Should they do a random shot when someone gets kicked out, or logs off mid-game?
or continue to have the next player shoot where they left off?

(for more detail to that question, read 1st post on the thread)

I feel the same way, but maybe if enough people put their opinion down.......

I agree, I don't think the argument of what would happen if someone left in a pub game is valid, this is an online game, and pub rules differ from country to country, town to town and even pub to pub.

I personally play killer in the pub with an ash tray in the middle of the table (even there from the break) and every ball that hits it is an extra 50p in the pot....but I digress.......yes random shot should be implemented after a player leaves.

good point about rules changing from place to place, where I am in the U.S., 8ball is totally different than 8us on here, also (though unrelated), we dont call it a pub, it's a bar lol

pubs and bars are 2 different things.... bar is more a fancy la de dah wine bar or club... pub is all about the beer

I agree totally with the point beenjammin makes.. no one shot should be made to kill 2 people! It's just unfair.. rather a random shot keeps it just that, random! If the random puts the next player in trouble, it's understandable as it's just lucky but with the player leaving it comes down to bad sportsmanship and leaves a sour taste in the next players mouth!
Random is the only fair way out

I agree with a random shot, because the player who left could have made a perfect safety, or left everything wide in the open.

It is completely down to chance, just like when someone plays a shot normally.

Random shot would at least give a fair chance to open up balls or leave a safety, just like a shot by the person who left might have done.

What do you think funkypoolers? Should they do a random shot when someone gets kicked out, or logs off mid-game?
or continue to have the next player shoot where they left off?

(for more detail to that question, read 1st post on the thread)

8 in favor, 10 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

2 against, 4 if you count hippesville and chris, who aren't against change, but would do something different than a random shot

Edited at 14:33 Thu 08/05/14 (BST)

I still prefer, for all game types, now treating the timer as a shot clock. Any shot not completed within that period would be a foul and treated in the exact same way as any other foul.

Shot clocks are now a feature of many cue events where they were not before, and it would be nice to see the site move in that direction too. Adding in to that the option for an extension request of one per player per rack when more thinking time is considered necessary for a testing shot, although I accept that would take a bigger programming change to implement than simply making each time violation a foul.

I have no problem with that in any other game type, but in killer, ball-in-hand wouldn't fix this issue, it would just be unfair on playerD instead of playerC (refer to degen's 1st post (page 3) if anyone is clueless to what I mean there)

ballinhand also would give playerC an undeserved advantage (guaranteed an easy shot, and an easy 8ball if it's still on the table)

Edited at 15:47 Thu 08/05/14 (BST)

Shot clock is different online though. A player could have gone to the toilet and you wouldn't know it. Whereas in real life, it's quite clear that the player doesn't know what shot to take and therefore times down. I prefer the random shot as it is completely random, there's a chance the player who's timed down could potentially get a pot which is fair if it's out of the players hands as to why he timed out. It also means that it gives less of an advantage than ball in hand does to the next player.

I think what you're referring to at the end of your post is a "Time Bank" which would be great to have if you wanted a game to move at a quicker pace but for those extra-tricky shots more time allocated. Would be very useful, but as you said, probably too hard/admin too lazy to implement.

I think a random shot would be fair.

Allowing the next person to face a situation completely different from the previous person.

No I agree ball-in-hand alone certainly does not fix the specific issue as per the exact scenario from the first post however why not actually go the whole way towards improving gameplay as a whole across the site? One change to remove Random Shots does that at a strike.

Any foul committed by a player (your player B) in Killer is likely to prove unfair on your player D. That is player D's bad luck and is accepted as such.

Whether the foul was through exceeding the shot clock or by any other means would be irrelevant.

You either accept that a player is required to play a valid shot to avoid incurring a foul, or you don't. If you do, then Random Shots get removed from the site full stop.

I am amazed that with so many competitive players, cue sports enthusiasts and general games players around the site that Random Shots are still tolerated let alone advocated for even further inclusion.

Are you saying a player may have to go to toilet mid rack rather than between racks so shouldn't receive a foul and should have a Random Shot on his behalf?

Not sure whether a 'time bank' by your post is the same as an extension?

The extension could only be used one time per player per rack. The effect would be similar to, for example, the Push Out option in 9 Ball. If it's your shot after the break the clock counts down but as soon as you click the 'Push Out' button the clock resets and counts down again.

A player is already required to play a valid shot to avoid incurring a penalty, it's just not quite considered a foul, and it's not as harshly punished. Really, I think that's good enough.

What do you think funkypoolers? Should they do a random shot when someone gets kicked out, leaves mid-game, or fails to take their shot (within the time limit) for the 3rd consecutive time?
or continue to have the next player shoot where they left off?

(for more detail to that question, read 1st post on the thread)

9 in favor, 11 if you count fran, who was in the game, but muted, although someone (tipster I think) said they had him on the phone and he agrees, and poolbird, although she hasn't posted here, it was her idea for the random shot.

2 against, 4 if you count hippesville and chris, who are for change, but would do something different than a random shot

if it was me i would get rid of random for other types as their are only two players so a ball in hand works as the fouler is the only person at a disadvantage (although in rare cases of 8US Ball in Hand has been a disadvantage).

In Killer i would rather see the random shot but if that is unavailable then Ball in Hand is the next best thing (perhaps from the line rather than anywhere).

a 10-20 second extension would be useful although if the player is not there then it is not.

For any normal foul in Killer the fouler is not the only person at a disadvantage (it's either the player two down the line or it's everybody else bar the player following the foul), so there is no difference?

If you are prepared to accept that you could lose to a shot not actually played by anybody involved in the game, then the change is almost pointless. You would be solving half a problem when you could solve the whole problem.

You would have to be there to claim the extension. It would not be there for you to use to gain more time just because you were busy doing something else, although of course there would be nothing to stop you doing that if you really wanted to use it that way once in a rack.

Edited at 23:59 Thu 08/05/14 (BST)