This phrase does not support the notion that you shouldn't surrender when heavily behind against enemies with a better late-game comp than yours.
The fact it's just a game and not something serious supports the argument that you can surrender a lost cause without any harm.
Just a bit of explaining for anyone who uses this incorrectly as justification for a 3/2 Failed Surrender vote.
disregardable2 votesThey're telling you to stop crying and shut up, not justifying the surrender vote.
The Poetic Zed2 votesActually it supports both those arguments. It's just a game, so no harm will come from playing out a losing game to its end. But because its also just a game, no harm comes from surrendering earlier. So they're using it correctly.
Shonjl2 votesIT can't though, since while its no harm playing a losing game til it ends. The people that want to leave are punished if they leave anyway. If the game is over, you should have the right to leave the game. The only way you can basically do that is afk farm and basically make the game a 4v5 since if you just afk at base you are the bad guy.
So how is it fair that those 2 dictate what the other 3 can do?
They honestly need to adjust the surrender thing, it should be majority rule, yet its not. 2 beats 3, 1 beats 2, evens its harder for sure but overall its stupid how it works. Who cares if it can be abused. Anything can be abused so using that as an excuse doesn't cut it. Best example I can use is politics. If there is 50 people voting, if its 30 yes and 20 no, you think the 20 no should win? No, the 30 yes do, and you think the 30 yes care what the 20 no said? No, since majority rules and more thought yes over no.
The Poetic Zed2 votesIT can't though, since while its no harm playing a losing game til it ends. The people that want to leave are punished if they leave anyway. If the game is over, you should have the right to leave the game. The only way you can basically do that is afk farm and basically make the game a 4v5 since if you just afk at base you are the bad guy.
So how is it fair that those 2 dictate what the other 3 can do?
They honestly need to adjust the surrender thing, it should be majority rule, yet its not. 2 beats 3, 1 beats 2, evens its harder for sure but overall its stupid how it works. Who cares if it can be abused. Anything can be abused so using that as an excuse doesn't cut it. Best example I can use is politics. If there is 50 people voting, if its 30 yes and 20 no, you think the 20 no should win? No, the 30 yes do, and you think the 30 yes care what the 20 no said? No, since majority rules and more thought yes over no.
By that logic, it harms the two that don't want to surrender because they get a loss when the game is still winnable (not debating the odds of winning, there's still a chance to win, thats absolute), making it harmful in both options. I'm not even reading that second paragraph because I don't care about that argument, I was only referring to the OP's statement about the phrase supporting their argument and not the other argument, when in fact, it supports both. Which it does.
The Ecdysiast1 votesNo, see, you're assuming something that I specifically said was not the case. The scenario I stated was when the game is not winnable. The enemies won't suddenly have different champions or suddenly get worse. I will admit that one AoE CC heavy champion can turn around any teamfight, but in my case that isn't present.
Shonji understood my point. Forcing 20 minutes for a sure-loss when fewer than half the team wants to keep playing is a punishment to the rest. In Ranked, never surrender. I agree with that. But not in Normals. There is no reason.
The Ecdysiast1 votesThey aren't. You're under the false impression that wasting twice as much time doesn't harm anyone.