Reductio ad absurdum, bunny.Bunnywabbit wrote:QUOTE (Bunnywabbit @ Jan 31 2012, 10:33 AM) now for the slippery slopes (Cookie even called it so and didn't realize that that means the argument is flawed: bad Cookie!):
"people will resign when they know they're beaten and it won't be fun anymore" -> "People will resign SG's after the first con loss" -> "they'll resign after the first minute" -> "Allegiance will die" -> "the world will end": There are many reasons to play besides winning. Learning, for instance, or because it's fun to play with your squadmates, and against friends in the opposing squad. Because it's fun to play higher level gameplay. all sorts of reasons. To say that people would resign at minute #1 if they were allowed to against a stronger team, is to say people would commit mass suicide if their ethics system allowed it, because every life must end in death.
In short: To pretend that the only thing keeping a squadgame going after the loss of the first con is the unwritten rule against resigns, is stupid.
As you bloody well know.
My point is merely that SGs, while not exactly being "professional" games, should be played to a higher standard than PUGs. By that I mean not just in gameplay but conduct, too. Like Idan said, it is unsporting to resign when you are losing. Let the winning team have their victory. If they are failing to end the game because of incompetence then that is another matter altogether. I am not saying that teams will inevitably resign after they lose their opening cons, I regrettably used the infamous 9 minute example because it has happened in the past. I am saying that SGs may devolve into a lot of games being resigned if resigning becomes an accepted practice, because really what's the point of waiting for the other team to get a bomber out and come to your base?
