I agree with the OP.  If you want to get better at the game, you have to play against people who are better than you.  Even with the limited information available to you, you can figure out ways to improve.

I'm sorry, but I just have to say it.

LMAO

Seriously, morality is completely arbitrary.  You assume something to have absolute moral value and then you derive a logic from it.  The problem is you have no basis for the assumption.  It always ends up being something like human happiness or human dignity or some other abstract ideal that varies from person to person.  It can never be derived from logic and can therefore never be universally absolute.  If the people you're making an argument to do not share the same ideal for what constitutes absolute moral value, your arguments will be incoherent to them.  This is why moral arguments often fail to do anything other than make you look pompous.

There are at least two boots that give speed boosts to you one is 10% the other is 15% with a 50% boost when you are damaged! On the UB this is particularly AWESOME as you can damage yourself..

He was determined to let the other team control the map and wouldn't leave his tower farm..the other Team was merciless to him he wouldn't leave no matter what they were roaming in a 3some and were all Damage assassins UB, TB and Regulus

So he died and died and died, all because he refused to leave his tower farm... and complained that the other regulus and I the QoT were able to run away and live.

Eventually he just stood at the shop and did nothing..it was infuriating.

1.  No

2.  Why not?

All subsequent and elaborated answers to (2) are to be responded to with a variant on "why?"

You will find that the logic ultimately leads to either you saying so, someone else saying so, or your own emotions.  These are all arbitrary criteria so your logic only makes sense to people who share your belief in them.  Ultimately, the reason for this is you can't derive absolute moral value from logic.

You're ignoring the point.  I have stated none of my own morality.  Thus far, I have simply questioning the basis for yours and the legitimacy of that basis.  As for my own views, I see everything as morally neutral.

And those absolutes are what exactly(you've only listed one here)?  And what qualifies them to be absolute?

Illogical hyperbole.  You cannot do what you want with no regard for others because in order to know what you want you must first consider how others will react to your actions.

Bullshit.

You simply choose to categorize corrupt and immoral values as neutral in order to (feebly) maintain an image of self perfection, and avoid guilt.

YOU

ARE

FLAWED

Common sense changes with time and is usually anything but sensible.  How can it possibly be absolute?  You're just extrapolating your own feelings to the majority and pretending that it's sensible because everyone agrees on it.  The truly funny part is both assumptions are totally fallacious.

I shared this post with a friend of mine today and she came up with what I believe to be the perfect response the perfect response.

I'M

SO

HURT

I think I'll add a little extra to make it more like your posts though.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

there is very little common sense on this thread

There is.  I mean, it's even in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newb

"Newbie is a slang term for a newcomer to an Internet activity, for example online gaming. It can also be used for any other activity in whose context a somewhat clueless newcomer could exist. It can have derogatory connotations, but is also often used for descriptive purposes only, without a value judgment."

...

In internet usage the full spelling of "newbie" has not been used so widely - often it has been shortened into other forms. A common variant is "n00b" or "noob", and is used as a pejorative for a user who fails to learn from experience, or in some cases, to degradingly refer to users who disrupt other users."

Sort of like Vyper's post that I was responding to?  I guess it only counts when the other side does it?  I respond to insults with insults and to arguments with arguments.

Seems to be a mess of misunderstandings?  If I'm not understanding something, please clarify.  The argument is not pointless.  Vengeance made a moral argument about leaving the game early and I am countering that.  If people are going to make a moral argument, they'd better be fucking prepared to deal with a counterargument that their morality is flawed.  I'm not seeing that.  He's just spouting that morality is common sense.  150 years ago, it was common sense in a large chunk of the United States that blacks were inferior people and it was perfectly right to enslave them, I don't think any of you would now argue that that is moral.  If morality is tied to something that can change over time, it is not absolute(and therefore cannot be applied to others) because absolutes are invariant.  As such his argument that it is an immoral act to ragequit is flawed.

I disagree.  The people who ragequit will be shunned by the people who get so worked up over someone quitting their game that they feel the need for revenge.  The rest of us just decide to accept that it happens in games with random people(some of them we even laugh at, there's a great thread over at GR about funny ragequits) and move on to arranging our games when possible.  If you insist on playing with random teammates and don't want to deal with ragequits, politely ask them(yes, say please) before the game starts(or at the start of the game) to not leave the game early even if it looks like they might lose.  If they blow up, the host will probably kick them because as you said, it will negatively affect the experience of everyone else in the game for someone to ragequit.  If they don't, they're rational enough to convince to stay in the game.

My counter argument is that there is no absolute morality.  Everyone has their own views on morality, you just can't reasonably apply your own to other people.  Many people, including myself, simply do not see leaving the game early as a moral issue.

It is the only reason because it's your underlying justification for all your other arguments.  It is the criteria you are applying to judge morality.

How was it not common sense among the slave owners?  Do you think they were just racked with guilt?  They all believed that slavery was just.  Common belief is the definition of common sense.  If you want a contemporary example of this exact same thing, look at the gay marriage issue.  One side of the debate sees same-sex marriage bans as discrimination, the other sees it as common sense that gays can't get married.  Ten years ago, gay marriage would never have been even brought up as an issue because such a substantial majority fell into the "it's common sense that gays can't get married" camp.  Apparently in California, those who view it as a common sense issue are still in a slight(and slipping, the view is much less prevalent among younger people) majority.  Common sense changes over time and simply cannot be used as a criteria for absolute morality.

More hyperbole...  It's not a comparison, it's an example to show exactly why common sense is a flawed metric for morality.

You missed the part about how I try to play organized games to avoid it.

Only bothered to try it once but it worked quite well.  There were no ragequits that game and the people in the game responded just as politely as I approached them.