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.

You make it sound so complicated, but it's not.

Do you like it when people ruin your game by leaving?

So why would you do it to them?

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..

there is like 4 types of rage quiting 

there is when there  fucking pissed off at losing

when  they see no hope in winning aka whit team who have died 10 times in 10 mins each

when they are  pissed at a person in the match and do it to piss the off

and  when there client crashes 

all off them people call it as rage quiting  but  it isn't really for some off them

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.

he isn't in rage quiting  he comes under a stuburn asshole

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.

So you intentionally inflict suffering upon others.  And you're arguing it's moral?  Thumbs up.

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.

Blah blah blah, there are no absolutes!  Yes there are.  In this case, it's wrong to bail on your team.  You might have a reason for it.  Ok, but it's still WRONG to do so without getting the consent of the others you're damaging by your actions.

How nice for you.  Doing whatever you want with no regard for others because morality doesn't exist.  I guess it makes living easy.

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.

To be honest after a handful of games online I can fully understand why people rage-quit.  I'm still a noob myself but even I find myself losing patients with my team mates very quickly.  For example;  Just had a game of fortress where our opponents were 2 forts down and ours were untouched.  Only problem was my rook ally wasn't leveling or doing much of anything besides making tower farms and feeding the other team gold and exp.  We had plenty of chances to 2 vs 1 a spit UB (I was ooze UB) but all he would do is build a tower and try to run away (lol) and leave me to get ganked.  I suppose I should have seen the warning signs when he upgraded priests ASAP. =/  Through the entire game I didn't see him use a single teleport scroll to move around.  Not one.  Plenty of times I would grasp the enemy beast to give him time to teleport out but nope he'd just keep plod plod plodding along and ofc get killed.  Eventually the enemy beast gets enough gold to hit end-game equipment and eats through all 4 forts in the space of about 5 mins.

Fact is that this game has an extremely unforgiving design, it has an extremely steep slippery slope and advantages/disadvantages snow-ball extremely quickly.  HOWEVER due to game mechanics your average game is going to last at least 15-20 minutes because you'll have to wait for your flag points to max out, or because you have to grind through your opponents static defences to reach the citidel etc.  I don't think it is necessary to stick around for the entire game to learn from your mistakes, I think that a lot of the time it's quite easy to identify what went wrong and why, the only problem is that there isn't always anything that can be done about it.  In those situations a speedy quit saves you 5-10 minutes, unfortunately it doesn't save your opponent any time because you will be replaced by a bot.  I think if the godawful AI bots were removed from multiplayer then it wouldn't be so bad, because then EVERYONE would save time from ragequits.

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.

I think some of you are missing the point. I have never RAGE quit. I have quit 2 times. Both times we had been playing for 45 minutes and were pined in our base. We could even go near the enemy. Part of that is cause someone droped 2 minutes in, so we were playing 2 v 3. And we gradually got worn down and out lvled. It was pointless and playing it out was worthless.

The 2nd time I had a horrible teammate. He was torch, and just killed creeps. He leveled well, but slowed my lvling 2 ways. He can AOE creeps so I kill 1 or 2 he kills 10. The 2nd issue was when I would go after a demigod standing right next to him, he would back off and stand there. I would have to run away and would do so. I had speed items which helped. He would not attack when I was attacking, just watch. If he did the game would have been more even. Eventually they out lvled us and eventually I started dieing. Not because I sucked. I wasnt feeding them. But becasue my partner had no concept of teamwork.

I saw some supposedly pro player bitching about his teamtes and from watching what he was doing, he was the real issue. He was not working with his team. He was off doing his own thing, so his teammates were constantly out numbered. A lot of the people here who say so and so is feeding the enemy, may look at what they can do to help their teammate. This is a team game, and most of the people I have seen complaining about rage quitting are great solo players, but horrible teammates.

Something to consider. I am far from a good player. I am still experimenting wth the classes to figure out what I will specialize in. But, I try to work with my teammates. Not an easy thing to do sometimes, but necessary.

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

I'm wondering why I stuck around this long in this thread when I learned everything I needed to know about it after reading someone insist that there is an intrinsic difference between "noob" and "newb".

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."

A rebuttle comprising of insults is the lowest grade of counter argument that can be put forth. Your argument, which seems to be a mess of misunderstandings, is pointless.
Rage Quitting negatively effects the game experience of a greater number of players. It is un-wanted and un-needed within the community as stated by the majority. Thus, regardless of whatever attempts at an argument are put forth, the people practicing such behaviour shall be shunned by the community. Discussion over.

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.

Your counter argument is "there is no morality."  That's not a counter.  If you think that ragequitting is somehow ok then you'd "better be fucking prepared" to say why.  Ironically you instead tried to take the moral high ground.

That's not the only reason (you've ignored all the others I put forth).  But it is the simplest one.

That's not common sense.  And in fact, a lot of people thought otherwise.  Actually they fought a war about it. 

But I'm really really hoping you weren't comparing slavery to being a leaver in an online team multiplayer game.  I mean, wow.

You may reasign yourself to a fate of ruined games, but some people actually want better.

Let me know how that works out.

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.