This same debate is playing out on Facebook Diplomacy atm. People there pointed out that at lower points levels PPSC is usually more fun because there are fewer dropouts, and the way PPSC makes players keep playing until the end is a good way to mimic the "unwritten rule" in FTF that you keep playing no matter what

That is a very good point. Having sheltered myself with League play etc. I don't have that concern so much

There are different philosophies of play and different background structures or tournament style dynamics that are designed to elicit different player behaviors.
On this site what I have seen is that in Points Per Supply Center
AS THE POINTS ARE CURRENTLY DETERMINED
which is very very important, it seems to encourage alliance play where one player wins and the other supports the win. It also makes it harder for an alliance to stop a winner since there is usually a front line power that is holding the stalemate line but his allies can nibble a few centers away from him.
What is missed in these discussions is that there is also the third aspect of the scoring system that is ignored by many and that is that in the case of a Draw, the survivors all share equally in the Draw. This is almost never mentioned in players discussions for the games I have been in or on the forum's discussion.
I have seen a player break a position to go for points when he could have gotten more points by holding the line.

In face to face regular tournaments, about 1/3 of the players know the scoring system inside and out, 1/3 think they know it and the remainder have either no clue or more commonly do not care. The same seems to apply here.

One of the issues on the point system is that it seems inflexible. That is there is no programers who are excited enough to make changes or provide alternatives.

What you could have is to have the same pot building mechanism but with different scoring applied to put different emphasis on the game.

Go here:
http://eurodip.nuxit.net/php/scoring/scoring.php?lang=Ang

and you will see 50 different scoring systems that have been used in world wide face to face tournaments. They have different approaches.

We could easily spin out a bunch of different approaches for people to play with, but who would do the real work of implementation and is that even possible?

As for my own view, I like chaos in the world of scoring systems. While one might say I was raised on the concept of the Win Only School (in fact some say I am one of the Founders of the style from the 1960's) I certainly enjoy playing under a whole range of different scoring systems and I take a lot of fun at poking at them here and there to bring up different points for people to chew on.
There is after all., not ONE way to play this game and that is part of its charm and why it has lasted 50 years.