If choosing not to continue fighting battle already lost is poor sportsmanship (i call it time-saving) then by all means declare me guilty - I let all my opponents who don't want to play it to the end to switch the map and find it an act of good sportmanship, but I guess it's just a matter of where does one look at it. My approach is pragmatic.

i know its boring getting beaten and u know uve lost, but a good sportsman always finishs his game.

edit, please actually post demos so we can watch em :)

Check the Xhep-demopack on another thread, can't seem to get url tags working.

Well, I guess we just disagree - I don't find, say, curling or rts-players (or any) any less of sportsmen when they shake their opponents hand and call it quits when they know the result. Act of not letting your opponent to do this have to be looked at aswell, is that good sportsmanship from the winner's part?

Maybe said winner can enjoy a game where he's playing well and beeing rewarded for that.
Wonder what you'd say if Serbia had called it a quit at 0-3 vs Argentina and we hadn't got to see the 3 last goals and that fluid play by Argentina.

I can even say I was sure I would lose to Xhep, lacking both practice and skills to beat him, should I have forfeited the whole game to save time knowing there was no way I would beat him ?

Not saying that your behaviour is utterly lame but still, I prefer players who play till the end of a game. It is indeed sportmanship in my opinion.

For me, the competitive process loses it's excitement when the outcome has been decided. The assumption that side-dependency would make a difference to this, is incorrect. I would like to quit as much when I know I have already won. In fact, usually I just start clowning around and wish that my opponent would indeed call it quits, so I could play against someone more levelheaded. This applies to my position as a spectator aswell, however...

we played the game, and I just wanted to switch the map cus the guy was leading me with like 20 frags and it was like two and half minutes left, I think the degree to the things you compared is just huge.

If you choose to watch this of a view of pre-assigned players as a winner and a loser, where these conditions hold a value of moral-like and if you indeed choose to see something as sportsmanship behaviour and unsportsmanship behaviour, I find it odd that the judgement applies only to the one losing.

No I'm not assuming you're beeing a sore loser. I'm just saying that I can't see what's wrong with going on taking advantage of your domination, accumulating frags, when it's deserved.
And it can be frustratring when you're playing a good game and your opponent calls it a quit while you could have enjoyed it for one, three, five more minutes.

I can see what you mean with the intensity of the game somehow decreasing when there's no way the losing player can come back, still you can enjoy the game to the end can't you ? Or is it only about winning or losing ? :)

For me the main, fruitable part of the competition is the objective such as winning. I cannot say I do not enjoy mildly of the act of violence the dominant one performs to the weak one. Granted, this effect is far lesser when the objective is void and when this happens the event you are describing borderlines the core-thing I call competition.

What I disagree, however, is the part that one could acquire sort of immunity to judgement by having the winning position. If I deconstruct your ideal, IMO you're just trying to make something that is 'bad' towards someone to look as a 'good' thing by writing poetic, heroic-like things. Forcing your opponent (as a winner) against one's wishes if just as bad for the loser, as loser leaving for winner who is more interested about "domination, intensity, *insert parfyme commercial*".

that is because you're assuming it's right to stop playing when the leader cannot lose and vice versa.
I understand what you mean, you have a point when you say that the winner should allow the loser to not finish the game ; I just disagree. When you engage yourself in a 10 or 15 min duel, you're supposed to play it until the end.

To some extent it makes me think of those clans which dropped out of leagues numerous times when they had nothing to win anymore. Just because there's nothing to win or to lose anymore doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game anymore.

It sums up to a single fact : in my opinion, you're just too focused on the competitive aspect of the game. Which you admit yourself anyway, not that I tell anything new.
There's nothing really wrong with that but I think it does take a bit of fun away, the ability to enjoy a game even when you're losing or winning easily, etc.
I'll guess we'll have to settle this one with a "That's just a matter of taste" label. :)

Good call tbh, was too darn tired to go on about this anyway :]

hey, yea i found that thanks...

just watched em anyways, and tbh it just makes u look like a soar loser! but i know ive done it before, and yes its flustrating, its just one of those things! its like if the shoes on the other foot, u want to keep playing!

edit, also, i think urve got some talent, and pld really well!

Thank you for the compliment, tbh I never could've dreamed to get this far in this particular cup with all the great players!

do you have your games vs tom?

maybe tom can up his as well, winning and then losing

always interesting!

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=927150

QUIT PILL FTW. Would save all the hassle.