Tom, you are correct in saying that the game should be played to be won. We are encouraging players to do so, which is why myself, as well as Fasces promote a system "closer" to WTA, rather than PPSC.
** Our goal here is to improve/correct the gameplay issues caused by the PPSC setting, not to totally upend the points system where players can play and compete in many games in a fun a dynamic fashion.
However, your narrow opinion that a winner should claim all the points in a game, I feel, is a misguided interpretation of the rules. Please remember that when Calhamer wrote the rules, he did not do it in context of a points system. For this reason, there was only a need to establish the terms for the winner, and it was not necessary in his mind to develop a system which quantifies "survival", especially when "survival" on this site may represent several months of diplomacy and dedication. A key point here is that the rules were not designed around a point system, but alas....WE HAVE a points system, and it is up to us, collectively, to find the best way to incorporate it (without it damaging the gameplay). Please show me where in rules does it say that once a winner is determined, that all the other players "lose", in the sense that being totally defeated is "losing". It doesn't. Your parents might have taught you that there are no points for second place (which might explain your hostility and inflexibility); however many of us feel that there is value in playing the game to the end, and surviving rather than being defeated. Here is my question... "If we can correct the gameplay issues associated with PPSC (i.e. players allowing a solo to happen in order to gain points), then why do you care if there is a small incentive offered to surviving players? My proposed solution, which is similar with fasces, solves the gameplay issues, yet also rewards players who are dedicated enough to play to the end. I don't think surviving players should "win" any points over their buy-in; however, if they control enough centers, they should receive points for them (TO A MAXIMUM OF THEIR BUY-IN). Don't you think that this would solve the gameplay issues, but still appease those in favor of PPSC? Please answer that question instead of simply reiterating your point with the addition of a few more insults.
Here is another thing to think about, please. Having a small reward for survival keeps weak players active in the game. In an online setting, it is difficult enough to keep losing players engaged. How much more difficult will it be when the player knows he will receive nothing when a solo victory is evident? Why should the player stick around, if survival means absolutely nothing? He's not going to want to stick around and fight for survival only for you to call him a "loser".