There isn't one as far as I can tell. The game automatically forces the loss for the inactive player after an overgenerous (imho) 14 days.

14 days is overgenerous. People shouldn't start games they have no ability or intention to play. A week is more than enough.

Yes, that does seem odd. For actual scrabble, I would first draw the new tiles from the bag, then put the other tiles back in. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to work but I don't see why it shouldn't work that way. It doesn't seem like cheating to me.

@lexulous The only way I can check is to see the list of 2-letter words. Seems inconvenient—and inefficient—to me.

@lexulous I realize that. I'm complaining about it

@Harold-Rennett I realized later that DAMNEDEST can be a noun. I still protest the misspelling of the word as DAMNEST as an acceptable word in Scrabble games. That's just BS.

Yes, that does seem odd. For actual scrabble, I would first draw the new tiles from the bag, then put the other tiles back in. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to work but I don't see why it shouldn't work that way. It doesn't seem like cheating to me.

I currently have more bingos than games, with a listed rate of 1.06 bingos per game. It took me quite a while for the number of bingos to exceed the number of games. I'm currently playing an opponent that has only played 34 games and has 70 bingos, better than 2 bingos a game. Is this a red flag? Or is that not abnormal? What does anyone else think?

This player also has a rating of 2060, btw.

@Pangloss I thought the beginning score was 1200.

@betterlate1 True, that thought occurred to me too

There isn't one as far as I can tell. The game automatically forces the loss for the inactive player after an overgenerous (imho) 14 days.

There's really no way to identify a cheater. All you really can have is a hunch. However, I'm currently playing an opponent who has only played two games. He has six bingos in two games. His ranking is 1948 (which strikes me as odd since both opponents have rankings below 1800). He has also played the word EUGH, an obsolete form of 'yew'. It's not a word I've ever encountered before in 12 years of playing this game, leading me to believe it's not a commonly known/played word. Is it possible this player could be cheating? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

@lexulous Thanks. It seems they are ignored then.

@betterlate1 I'm asking about lexulous.com players joing FB lexulous games.

@Pangloss I do. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

Can lexulous.com players see game notes?