No, leaving a game isn't unsportsmanlike behaviour and in my opinion, should never be considered unsportsmanlike.

> Should they not be demerited or something for breaking the rules?! 

There is no rule saying you should play bo3, and in fact, if I'm playing someone who decides to give me abuse in the first game I will not hesitate to leave ;) How would a system that shows a "!" when people don't play bo3 work? For instance, when I play snooker for half an hour or so, I very rarely play bo3 unless someone specifically asks, just because the games are sometimes too long and I don't play one game for much longer than 30 minutes a time. Does this mean I would have the stigma of a ! next to my name?

Imagine if you always played bo3 and you just won a game but had to go somewhere and you couldn't stay to play for one reason or another, because you leave, you would be marked with a ! sign, this would lead to more complaints than FOD could probably cope with :p

What people often get mixed up with is that running/chasing the 9 ball/3 fouling/comboing on the 9 is not cheating at all. It's part of the game just because some people don't approve of it doesn't mean FOD needs to create it's own rules against it :).

I understand if some people get annoyed with people running, it annoys me a bit when someone leaves when the score is 1-1 then decides to send messages in the lobby laughing at the fact they left, it doesn't make me feel that they need punishing though. The best thing to do if you feel strongly about it is look at a person's past game history (It's pretty easy to see if someone constantly runs after a win) or remember those who do run from you, mute them and don't play them again in the future.

I used to get annoyed with runners, but now, when I actually play, I can't be bothered to play a bo3 with someone I'm never going to see again, especially when I know full well he would run on me. If its someone I know then its different. Or if they start a conversation and act like they have more brain cells than points then I'll stay.

Snooker is a long game I agree, but the rest are generally short and sweet :) but regardless of that, I ask you, why not bo3? If FOD were to install such a button, then that wouldn't mean everyone would have to play bo3, it would be a choice, just like running is ;) but at least then the other players would know what kind of time you have to play and how many games you would like! And as for the system with the "!" that would simply mean for players that constantly only play 1 game, it was just another idea for the bo3... though to play in any game its a choice of the player, not of you. So again, I think they should install "best of three games" button for those players that have the time. To the disconnections, I've seen in chess a reconnect, so why couldn't they apply same thing to Billiards?!

Another thing I might add; Obviously your view of unsportsmanlike behavior and mine is different.. but I shall say this; have you ever watched pro billiards tournaments? If so, then I'm sure you have seen them play more then 1 game, and there is a reason for it! 1 win in my book still=0 but when you can best at least 3 games with other player, then you got something going for ya ;)

But your right, its not in rules to play bo3, but I like many others I imagine feel its more fair to do that, then only run from every game :) and that is just my 2 cents

You make some perfectly reasonable points :)

The problem I can see with a bo3 warning is, that to incorporate such a warning onto an online game would be too difficult. If you put in a system which targets players who consistently don't play bo3, then this would mean there has to be a cut off point (maybe 20 games in a row). The problem with this is that this is easily avoidable by playing 19 games - leaving each time - and on the 20th game playing a bo3.

If the system was modifed slightly, let's say a total of 100 games where the player has not played bo3 means a player receives a !, then this would be unfair on those who keep their nickname for long periods, for instance, I could have played 100 non bo3 games in my 2 and a half years on FOD, someone who has been here 1 week could play 100 games and be branded a "runner" just like myself with no consideration for time periods.

>1 win in my book still=0 but when you can best at least 3 games with other player, then you got something going for ya 

And I agree totally with you. But not everyone runs from a game and brags about their skill, a lot of people do it merely to chase points and this is just something that needs to be accepted in an online game :p

I still think that running should never be a punishable offence. There are just too many variables involved in determining whether someone has left for a 'legitimate' reason and I wouldn't want to be punished for leaving a game because something has come up in real life if it was against the rules.

The bo3 button is a system which is possible (And has been discussed many times on this forum). I would never use such a system myself, just because I can never guarantee playing 3 games with someone, but, if a system was brought in which addresses many of the issues involved - such as what happens if someone disconnects, what happens if someone leaves after a game etc. then I would welcome it. I have a feeling that the majority wouldn't use it, ~70% of the people I challange run anyway, but it would be a suitable solution to those people who want to play bo3 regularly :D

Sorry for the long post but it's ever so 

slightly

 refreshing to see a good debateable topic on here :p

Being regarded somewhat as a god on this site, I shall share my wisdom.

If a bo3 button was made, and a bo3 was accepted, this is how the points could work.

Winning the first game you recieve the normal lot of points. If you then leave after than first game the other player doesn't recieve a 2-1 scores worth of points, they recieve a 1-1 worth of points. On an equal point matched game you could consider this as voiding the match.

Therefore a player cannot play 1 game and get points then run, as he will lose 1 games worth of points afterwards giving him the same rating again. This also means people who genuinely have to go will only lose 1 games worth of points (in most cases they have the same amount of points as before the bo3) as opposed to losing the bo3 2-1.

Being regarded somewhat as a god on this site, I shall share my wisdom.

you never fail to make me smile :)

Bo3 is pointless, come on guys, we all came on here in the first place to have a little game of snooker online... snooker being snooker, doesnt matter who you are playing, you play the table not the opponent

Also I should have added if they leave/dc in the first game they lose 1 games worth of points. If it gets to 1-1 with 1 player potting the black, and the winning player leaves then he loses the points as if he had lost 2-1. Obviously if mid 3rd game a player leaves the other player gets the points.

This obviously doesn't guarentee a bo3 is always played but it stops people who want to run from taking advantage. If they choose to leave then the score can only be 1-1 or 2-1 to the other player. 

Therefore the only people accepting a bo3 will be people intending to play it to the end =]

Rather than creating a bo3 button, why doesn't fod award best of three players with extra points. That way no one loses out and you get awarded for seeing out the three games.

Thank you Fret, I smile down on you from above.

That wouldn't really work Hop, it would just make it easier for people to get free wins. Plus FoD would have to re-work their point system. It would also lead to much higher ratings.

We should never reach the point where people who play bo3 get some kind of advantage over others, whether that would be points or something else. 

Bo3 is not a requirement but rather an option, if you start trying to change the whole dynamics of online play, that's when you get problems (And FOD has enough as it is). Personally, extra points for bo3 would be just the same as giving extra points to those who play the full game of snooker rather than the quick version.

I agree with Lamb, we need bo3 button but does flyordie listen to us?
Every player in 8 ball runs.thats not normal

If everyone does it surely it 

is

 normal?

http://forum.flyordie.com/thread.jsp?forum=4&thread=22787&message=213973&q=626f3320627574746f6e#213973

this idea has been suggested 4 years ago. However even with over 300 signiatures to the petition nothing was done.

Rise...surely it is normal to be a bit respectful and not so sarcastic in every one of your comments...you may think its smart however you are disillusioned and need to calm down.

I think personally, it can be done! I know for a fact, that FOD has added a reconnection time limit in other games, why can't they do the same for Billiards? Also, again, bo3 is a choice, its not a perm fix to all games that have only 1 match rather a 

option. So that would take care of the disconnection problems and generally no more complaints towards that area.. 

Ladies & Gentlemen; I vote for a change in the way things are done now, to a newer, better, and more effective way games are played here! Don't get me wrong, things are that bad now but as with anything else, it can always improve

If I can't be a **** on the internet where can I be a ****?

jay4life fluked loads doesnt say sry for them then flukes the final black and runs at 1-1


as far as  i was aware games were either 1 or bo3 or bo5

i dont have a problem with runners, often i just play bo1 either because i have to leave, or just dont want to play bo3, i dont see why u should be called a runner just because you want to play 1 game.

and lets admit, the only time people complain is when they lose, never when they win.

OMG JOHN521495022112 JUST RAN ON ME!!!