Theres a lot of changes happening within funkypool and snooker at the moment, they may be small now, but slowly and surely these sites will be turned into money making systems

You said that the website (Nick) was becoming greedy for money, which clearly isn't the case and that's the point I was picking up on, nothing else.

As for the idea, I personally wouldn't participate (Obviously firstly because I'm not 18, but also- even if I was 18, I would know I'd just be paying with next to no chance of getting anything back Maybe you could call me greedy for that? It would certainly apply more ). But I can also see the positivies as long as, as has already been confirmed, it would be on a seperate server.

Something extra for those who feel that they've achieved as much as they can and want a little extra to play for, maybe a bit more motivation for winning. Or even just a bit of easy money for those who are really on form

How do you know?

Right here are my probs with it:

1) I know for a fact that if I were 11/12/13/14/15 my mother wouldn't let me any here near a game which A) requires you to pay, B) has the option for you to "put money at risk" C) is linked to a site which requires you to pay D) Is linked with a game with the option to "put money at risk". Basically the site is no longer family friendly, even if there is a seperate link, it is still assosiated with funkypool/snooker.

2) Arguments. I have a lot of patience, but if somebody fluked the final red and took the pot even I wouldn't be impressed. There are far worse out there than me for this - people cry enough losing 10 ranking points, never mind £10

3) Connection Loss, pretty self explanitory, connection goes down, £10 goes with it.

4) As mentioned and linking in with point 1, u18s will not be able to play - also probably requires proof of ID and duno how that is going to happen?

5) There will probably only a hand ful of players capable of winning anyway, cos of ability/age/spare cash.

Edited at 00:32 Sun 25/01/09 (GMT)

Quite a juvenile comment there. How can you say the site is greedy when new features are brought on very regularly and in all cases it is free. The only time you can and will pay money is through premium and that is optional PLUS you get the added bonus of no adverts too. I'd say i would be pretty grateful to have access to such features.

And how is money ruining the site? Please explain this more, i'm confused.



Who said anything about paying for it?



Maybe not a lot of users on here, however this idea may attract other people in ways funkysnooker cannot (an older generation for example) and they may even find funkysnooker through this other site therefore bringing more users to this one.

Also this is not classed as gambling, please remember that. It's just like any other competition.

Few more:

Match fixing - Friebds are going to set each other uo so that they get too the final 2. This is unfair on the other members who are playing to kill. Fine when points are at stake but not when money is.

It is gambling. I don't care how you try and word it, it is. I've played on fruit machines probabbly to much (lost about £3-400 in a year and a half when I had a caravan in North Wales on £5 jackpot machines) one of which was a connect 4 game which called itself a skill game or something - rubbish it was gambling, its all on chance (I've looked over on pool and they have done a rather good job of hiding one of the major problems with the idea by making a new seperate thread - why?)

This is a fun game, but with the introduction of money, the fun factor will be lost. People will go straight to the other site, leaving the main site bare, people who do not want to gamble will not have many members to play/chat to. This will in my opinion decrease the number of new members coming through, when they see that 40 members are online, they will not stay long enough to even realise there is a seperate game.

Final point is that there are gambling sites out there far more established than funkysnooker. Once people get the bug, they will be off to other sites, poker, bingo etc...

after being a moderator for about 9 months, I honestly find it startling that this is even being considered. regardless of what was said on pool, this site has always promoted itself ...

as being family friendly, but when they want to introduce a feature which jeapordises it, they distance themselves away from the idea, and claim that the site isn't family friendly. Now I am confused, and has opened up a can of worms. The site isn't family friendly, but the chat room is? Ok that doesn't make sense to me.

I am inclined to believe that the success of funkypool/snooker will become its downfall. We have been doing sects in college recently, and they start off full of good intentions being preached, then they end up self destructing, this I can see hapening to this site. Family friendly -------------------------> gambling ------------------> extinction.


Maybe dramatic but I think it is the totally wrong step for this site

Edited at 11:39 Sun 25/01/09 (GMT)

I finally have supporter...

Go post that on pool, I got absolutely grilled on there!

Again, people are trying to distort the idea by calling it gambling, when it is clearly not.

As I said before, was Ronnie O'Sullivan gambling by entering the Masters? Or entering a competition?

This will in no way affect the family friendly nature of this site, what is being discussed is a seperate site.

There have always been links to third party sites on funkysnooker, and indeed by its very virtue of being on the internet, it is already associated with all manner of other, non family-friendly websites.

Feel free to create a thread elsewhere to debate the morals of gambling if you wish, but please keep posts on this thread on topic.

No one is required to pay and is already linked to gambling sites through adverts so this would not change.



Adds to the fun, just like in real life.



That would be true - if you have a bad internet connection that constantly disconnects you probably shouldn't play. (And should sort out a better ISP!)



Let me worry about that.



No different to online poker.



The thread was about whether people were interested in killer pool. Discussing the morale points of playing for money is out of the thread's scope and has been clearly linked. Nothing has been hidden and I resent that wording.



Giving more options is proven to increase website traffic.



By that logic not offering cash gaming loses a lot of traffic. The glass is very much half empty for you.



Gambling sites have been linked since day one.



The core site is free, as it's always been and there's no plans to change that. I don't see how this idea changes anything.



You seem to be generally against the idea, which is fine, but there's a lot of interest on funkypool.

This is just an idea to get interest levels. I don't want this to turn into a debate on morale grounds.

I'm not against this idea, i'm just not convinced there will be a great interest for it on funkysnooker, the case may be different on funkypool which has more users. As a guy who plays killer on funkypool and also plays online poker and sportsbooks, i'll give it a chance and give it a go.

I have personally only one thing to say against this: people will probably tend to be less friendly if they're playing for money. If you lose 10 ranking points because of a fluke, it's not a big deal to get over it, but it'll be another thing for £10.

To prevent such issues I'd suggest to have a staff member always watching money matches, to ensure everything is going well.

Also note that killer is a game where flukes are usual, and the final outcome doesn't always depend on your personal skill (playing order, for example, can make a big difference). Of course the players should be aware of this before entering a tournament, but this could as well lead to some behavioural issues, when linked to money.


Except that, I have nothing against it. I won't play it anyway, I'm not that good in killer.
However, if this was brought for original, who knows... ?

On a slighlty differing note, perhaps the involvement of cash would be the only way to get a league to actually run properly?!

Thats a very good point pieceofpig. People will naturally take games more seriously in such an environment.

Obviously it's early days in the discussion, but little things like not allowing PM's to players, during cash games etc will all have to be considered.

Such a scenario would also strenthen the argument for things like the option to mute spectator chat.

What cannot be overlooked in that the ability to play for cash has been asked for since the poolgame days, so there is no questioning the demand.

And the reception that these people who asked got have been what? A massive no. Just because Nick mentions it people change their minds and backtrack. Well I know my own mind, and call me pessemistic if you like Nick, but I don't know on what grounds you can say this - because I disagree with your idea? Ok, take a pop shot, I'm not going to be childish enough to join you however.

Admin views: Its been spoken about before but to be honest funkysnooker isnt about trying to win money or gambling....its about being funky and fun.

SAY NO TO GAMBLING ON FUNKYSNOOKER.

I agree, gambling money is just a bad idea... I also think a gambling view would both force a lot of members to leave the site, and damage the amount of new ones...

Oo aint they pessimistic?

I would make me leave if that happens cause its is taking a way the fun and the funky

Can't not got a pool account, post it over for mee.

I don't think 1 member leaving will make him change his mind to be honest.

I do agree with mike coming to think of it in a way, gambling, or whatever you want to call it for the game, i think has no place for funkysnooker or pool. Bit unnesserary i think. What's the problem at the moment with the game, ive only heard a couple of people EVER mention this idea before, so why please just a couple with something pointless like this.

Keep funky as it is!

It will be optional so it benefits the whole site.

How does it benefit the whole site? Explain to me ste because im confused by that.