My opinion is that not voting to end is jerkish unless it's very clear you're going to win, e.g. if you have double the opponents team. Of course, you had better chances, but not dramatically better chances.
Who was in a better position to win?: 7/5/2012 17:58:15
I didn't weigh in on the vote issue because I don't play real time and don't really know what the unwritten rules are. But as I said the game was far from over. Without multi-attack that game was going to take forever, why would anybody even play US big real time without multi?
Who was in a better position to win?: 7/5/2012 20:03:14
While you had better position, dotdotdot had more momentum going and less troops dead. Basically, you were gambling that you could outexpand dotdotdot and he would be too cautious to keep momentum going.
Who was in a better position to win?: 7/5/2012 21:47:30
If Seasonal Ladder force finish rules were applied, you clearly would have lost here:
Income x 2 + number of armies controlled
320*2 + 1360 = 2000
318*2 + 819 = 1455
However, as others already pointed out it is impossible to tell who would have won in the end. You were both well inside each others bonuses, preventing the other from completing his meta bonuses. dotdotdot clearly had the momentum though, judging by his army surplus I'd say his chances were significantly higher than yours.
For the sake of argument let's scale down all numbers by 10 and imagine this was a 1v1 on medium earth:
Both players get 32 per turn, one player is 54 armies ahead (= almost 2 turns worth of income). I think in that case everyone would have called you a jerk for not voting to end ;-)
Who was in a better position to win?: 7/6/2012 07:26:11