After three turns, there are three or four players who are all FUBAR. But if you're one of them, then you have to pay a penalty for being the first one to admit it. The alternative is hanging out in hopeless cases in the blind hope that the other lame players get eliminated before you.

I think it makes more sense to reward players who can see their weak positions than it does to reward players who manage to be in a quiet corner of the board.

What? Do you not understand the concept of losing?

are you a sore loser come on I SAY NO

Certainly; I see losers six times a game like everyone else does. My point is just that I believe that the first four losers all suck equally, and should be judged much more on their dominance than by the order in which they were defeated.

it is a bit silly, everyone's gonna lose points and the longer they wait the more they'll lose, but the first to flag loses the most... it makes losing a lot less fun

I like this better than giving all points to 1st. But they have to come from somewhere, how much do you want 4th to lose? btw there's no skill in dominance, that's probably one of the main reasons the elo system was so unbalanced. It's simply there so you don't get too rewarded for hiding in a corner with 2 land for 2nd (and to penalize away players).

Generally, finishing 4th-7th meant losing points in the old system too. So what's the problem?