Everyone has their own views about everything, but that doesn't make them valuable or correct.

It's actually not, but you ignored the other reasons.  A smart move if you're trying to avoid them.

So what you're saying that people who "simply do not see leaving the game early as a moral issue" are the equivalent of slave owners.  Well, ok, I guess.

No, it isn't.  If you were a slave owner, would you have liked to be a slave?  No?  Why not?  Common sense.  Would you like someone to leave your Demigod game, ruining it?  No?  Why not?  Common sense.

No it doesn't.  It just takes a small amount of thought to understand the consequences of an action.

Why are you avoiding it if you have no problem with it?

I'm fairly sure you didn't make a difference though.  Those people were not going to quit before your speech.  You didn't convert anyone, because these people are not convertable.

Then what exactly is the point of the dozen threads a day we're seeing on this subject around here?

If it's not the underlying reason state what actually is and I'll argue that point.

If you're going to argue, please use the correct word.  That has nothing to do with common sense.  That is just the application of empathy or following the so-called "golden rule."  It still doesn't justify absolute morality because different people will come to different conclusions about what they would like.

My preference is to play games out, I have more fun this way.  I don't have a problem with people who do not share that preference.  Is it really that hard to follow?

Let's see.  Quoted out of context?  Check.  Applied to an unrelated context?  Check.  Congratulations, you've won the dishonest debater award!  Seriously, how do you even make the leap from slave-owners viewing slavery as common sense to people not seeing leaving the game early as a moral issue being their equivalent?  The ideas are totally unrelated.

Yes and this is what a normal ("common") person would like - for people not to leave and ruin games.  Again, we're back to common sense.

You really don't want to concede this point.  Why?  Do you seriously think it is ok for people to ruin the games of others and that most people should share that view point?  Why?

You didn't answer the question - why are you avoiding it if you have no problem with it?  There's a reason, and we both know what it is, now I just need you to admit it.

Bing bing bing!  You have hit home upon the fact that slavery and rage quitting have nothing to do with each other!  Now why did you bring it up again?

Because despite Vesuvius's protestations it turns out most people DO have a problem with people leaving games before they are decided!  Fancy that.

 

Umm having a preference to play games out IS answering the question.  I would rather play against people than AIs, this is why I play the game online in the first place.  It is a choice between an acceptable experience and a good experience.  I'll take good over acceptable when I can, but it doesn't mean I have a problem with acceptable.

I brought slavery up as an example of how common sense changes.  Learn to read.

It's the same 5 people making most of the posts.  There are a few random guys that make new posts railing against ragequitters but you have no way to determine that they are actually a majority.

So now absolute morality is determined by what "normal" people want?  That's no good, what if normal people are wrong?  People's desires can never be an absolute standard.  Seriously, all I want you to do is justify why this is a moral issue.  Give me a concrete reason that absolute morality exists and demonstrate why leaving the game is morally wrong.  All you're doing right now is constantly changing the way you define common sense to dodge my arguments.

 

And yes I think it's morally ok to leave the game even if it ruins it for the other players(it's not a good thing for the DG community but that doesn't make it a moral issue and I have my own thread on how we as the community should respond to it).  It's a morally neutral act, neither right nor wrong(this doesn't mean everyone should do it, don't even try to go there).  I don't think other people necessarily should share that view, I think that other people do share that view.  I also think that you are imposing your moralized view of ragequitting on those of us who don't agree with it.  My thread on the topic was all about why this is bad for the community and a different response is required.  I'm not going to argue that point again.

Common sense is not the current beliefs and understanding of the times; common sense in the bare minimal raw intelligence one would assume all living people possess. This is different to morality; right and wrong.
Enslaving people is ethically and morally wrong from my point of view, however common sense doesn't really enter the picture because the most intelligent person taught to believe one race is superiour to another would still find slavery to be morally right from their point of view. Morals are learnt; common sense is not.

What any of this has to do with Rage Quitting is beyond me. Morality can enter the picture if you so chose, however even with the lack of morality, Rage Quitting is still a bad practice. When the actions of one person acting for and of themselves directly and negatively effect the experiences of multiple people, the minority is wrong. It's simple democractic logic; the many outnumber the one, and thus the needs/wants of the many superceed the needs/wants of the one. It's the basis for the Western World and applies here.

Once we've agreed that Rage Quitting negatively impacts on the game experience of a group of people larger than the number of Rage Quitters, your argument is contradicting itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

 

The term has multiple definitions and all are plausible given the context in which it was initially used.

Not really.  My argument is about it being morally neutral, not the effect it has on the community.  This whole thing is just a response to InfiniteVengeance's attempt to turn ragequitting into a moral issue.  I don't like it when people try to ram their ridiculous beliefs down my throat.

 

I made a thread weeks ago about the effect of ragequitting(which I personally don't care about but I can see how it's an issue for some people) and how it should be approached(banlists are, in my opinion, generally much worse than ragequitting).  I have no desire to repeat all those points again here though so I stuck to refuting the moral argument.

Your argument is that Rage Qutting is morally neutral. Despite the word 'Rage' being used and thus bringing emotions and by extension morals into the equation by literal definition, in the interest of providing a consistant argument I explained how, when viewed morraly neutral, Rage Quitting is still a bad practice. When you agree with me, that Rage Quitting is a bad practice despite the absent of the moral argument, your argument is complete and we've come full circle as it is now on par with the general community consensus that Rage Quitting is a bad practice.
Contradiction was the incorrect word to use in my previous post, I'll concede that.

Well, specifically you argued morality's place as a whole in this topic rather than the points put forth. Morals are placed here because others have brought them to the table. Claiming then that this is not a moral issue when, clearly, people have made it one is a rather flawed argument to begin with. Your morals differ from that others; just because you believe it so doesn't make it so for all, or as you so adequetly put:

Here's my two cents... If the game is GG you can't win or GG I can't win i got no problem with you or me leaving. I got better things to do with my time than wait around for you to EVENTUALLY get my citadel. I'm amazed the rest of you have that much free time to waste needlessly... It's a video game.

i dont  have a problem with it if u got to leave u got to leave  but i do want a surrender button liker iff all ur team wants to surrender  then  ur castle will blow up

*snicker* Waste time needlessly its a video game?

 

You crack me up.  You will never EVER learn to win from a losing battle if you never even try.  On some maps it is indeed possible.

 

 

Yes. Makes you wonder why some people play the game

 

This doesn't really say that he ragequits losing battles.  He quits battles he speculates he is going to lose.  You are making a huge leap in logic assume that equals every game that is "a losing battle". 

 

In regards to wasting time in a video game, yes, it is entirely possible to "waste time" in a video game.  If you are spending 20-30% of your total free time in a given day fighting a battle you know you cannot win, when you could be attempting another battle, I do not think it is inaccurate to call it a waste of time.  If you are attempting to argue that playing video games is a waste of time, I would turn this arguement around and argue that the inherent act of living is a "waste of time". 

 

Watching this thread go back and forth reminds me of debate around almost every hot-button issue.  People are not even talking to each other.  It's like they read certain keywords and fire up their pre-programmed fiery, righteous response.

 

In my opinion, the main issue here is that Demigod cames can be essentially decided very early by a good team who basically goes into "farming" mode.  Obviously if these players are bad you can save all your unit upgrades for a counter-push, but most good teams will be well prepared for such an obvious move.  This match can drag on for literally 40-50 minutes or longer.

 

As has been stated many times, a concede button should solve some of the issues.

i play the game to fuck arround but if ur being beaten by dumb iddiots u just feel like losing

Interesting.  How so many don't have the time to waist if they think they are losing, but have plenty of time to play if they think they might win. . .

I posted a huge long post yesterday but today discovered the forum had eaten it.  Just pretend I completely perfectly countered every point you made Vesuvius and was so eloquent and convincing that you swore off leavers forever and also volunteered for charity work.

When you are on a team you do not get to make that decision alone.  What is a losing battle to you is not a losing battle to the other 3 people on your team, and if you leave it sure as hell will be after that.  That's why you must have consensus.  If everyone on your team wants to give up, it's OK to leave!  If they don't think the game is over, then you stay, regardless of whether you think it's a "waste of time" or not.  When you clicked join game you were going to commit the amount of time to play a full game anyways, right?

Exactly.  Not a single person quits when they "know" the battle is won.  Odd, don't you think?  You should see the same ratio of people leaving who know they've won as people leaving who know they've lost.  Unless that's not the actual reason....

I disagree, there is a certain point in the game where you will not turn it around if you are playing against a competent team.

 

A newer player may be unable to recognzie that point.  A more experienced player may just want slow down the other team's inevitable win.

 

I completely agree that quitting because you were killed once or twice is retarded, but if a game has been going for 30 minutes and the opponents are 10 levels over you making their pretty push with their recently upgraded full creep wave, I'm not going to e-rage over my teammate quitting. 

 

 

Fairly sure no one is talking or complaining about quitting in this situation.  But if the enemy team is only 1-2 levels over you with a partially upgraded creep wave....

Correct.  I've never tried to argue that ragequits are good for the community.  The most I've argued(in another thread) is that they're a negligible problem for the community(I don't view it as a problem at all for me personally, it's so rare that I just get a good laugh out of ragequitters and move on to the next game) that doesn't justify the community's extreme response to them.  Most of the people railing against ragequitters want to use banlists.  That's like using chemotherapy to treat the common cold.

Actually it's more like using chemotherapy to treat cancer.  Sure there's collateral damage but it's the only way we have right now to stop it.

To combat ragequitting, what if there was some sort of point system that tracked or showed how many times someone quit. You could set it up into categories i.e. 1-5 quits would put you into a mild or lesser category of a quitter. With 0 quits would put you into the "trooper" or whatever term would be used to signify someone who stays in. The more times someone quit, the worse "score" or "reputation" they would have. The points should be tied to the account and when they go to play a game, their "rep" would show up next to their name (or make a separate category for it). I think somthing of this nature would definitely give incentive to stay in the game if they know they will get booted from future games when their "mark" gives them away to be a quitter.

 

That won't work because of the innumerable random disconnects you get through no fault of your own.

Had a game last night, 4v4, and we had a player on our team DC at the start of the game (actually, had 1 DC at game start EVERY game I tried last night, but that's another thread), but we stayed in; fought, and in mid game, a guy on the other team got a DC, so it ended up being a pretty decent game after that. 

Hey, that's an idea:  If someone ragequits on one team, have the game randomly kick another player off the other team to keep things even.  That would make the game almost perfect 

It won't seem almost perfect when you are the player randomly kicked through no fault of your own.  It will seem like the dumbest idea in the world.

A community wide Banlist is overkill, however personalised Banlists are fine just like the 'Ignore Lists' featured in most multiplayer games these days. I wouldn't use mine, however someone who'd want to use theirs would be welcome to and this would allow them to control who they played with and who they didn't play with. This fixes the problem for both sets of people and I see nothing wrong with this.



Well, if someone argues something on moral grounds you're no longer able to say it's not a moral argument; it is to this person, and in order to argue them further you'll need to address those moral issues. Your statement

also works in the reverse. Whats not morally questionable to you might be to someone else - it all comes down to, well, their morals.


Actually, I respond to the key components of a persons post when discussing an issue - if they make a point, I'll quote for ease of reading and respond to that point with my own thoughts. If there is more to be said, they'll do the same. It's called a debate, a discussion or an argument depending on the openess, civility, respect and tones of the people involved.