Your 5 ? or you mean you're 5 !!!! someone writes like they are 5.

Bye for now
xxx

I've corrected you're mistakes also, sure you're not 5?!!

This the reason why i am a moderator and you aint. Posting completley off topic and nothing constructive to say.

Like i said before but someone didn't listen, back onto the topic.

Coming to think of it, yeah it is a bit of an akward situation as it could cause arguments.

Ha ha ha, priceless @ Damee, power is going to your head is it ?

Ste_Efc, corrected what exactly? oh I see, you have put upper case letters halfway through a sentence.

Must try harder C-

Danfield, what are you on about? The thread is about an idea that someone has had, not you coming in here trying to be clever. When it really isn't working considering capital letters do come after exclamation marks as well despite what you seem to think. They also come after question marks, so you're going wrong quite a bit.

Post on topic, not going off and thinking you're funny and clever by coming out with these stupid little comments, 'cause it's really not working.

As for the idea, I do like it, would definitely need to be some measures in place to stop it being used incorrectly though.

Edited at 21:37 Tue 6/01/09 (GMT)

back on topic boys having this option will just cause arguments for example ste_efc and danfield

What does Ste and Danfield argueing in this thread have to do with the option of re-racking causing arguments?

If one person wants to re-rack and the other doesn't, then the person who does has to accept that knowing that they can't do anything about that.

Edited at 22:00 Tue 6/01/09 (GMT)

ok well this thread was made to make a point and already arguments are being caused. Ok it isnt on topic but its still an argument which is on this thread

Yeah but Danfield would create an argument in an empty room - he lives for them. That shouldn't be used as a criticism of this idea.

Just because there is an argument on the thread doesn't have anything to do with wether the idea would cause arguments if it was implemented. There's no relationship at all between any arguments that would be caused and the argument on here...

The idea of re-racking in the case of a stalemate is, in principle, a sound one and is in line with real life play. However, The problem comes with the implementation of the rules in a computer program.
In real life, the rule is governed by the Official Rules of Snooker which, after a goodly number of years, has managed to come up with the fairest (and thus least 'argument provoking') methods of handling most situations ( http://www.worldsnooker.com/rules_of_snooker.htm ).

In this case, the relevent rule is



continued...

Edited at 23:39 Tue 6/01/09 (GMT)

...continued

In the case of FunkySnooker, the referee has to be a deterministic algorithm for determining whether a stalemate exists. A simple count of shots taken with no pot is insufficient as it does not take into account the possibility of two inexperienced or 'off form' players just missing a lot. Perhaps, a method whereby the cumalative distance traveled by the object balls over a number of shots is less than a threshold value - but this would not cater for all scenarios.

To summarise, I like the idea but I think the difficulty of implementation far outways the benefit gained. On the points raised about arguments, I think that there are people who are going to argue no matter what is implemented but many more who would accept the rules for what they are - the rules.

Good point, this is a pretty similar problem with the foul and a miss rule as well - how can a piece of software interpret fully how a referee would act in the circumstance, after all, there is never one game of snooker the same.