Objective #2 is assuming you cannot achieve #1, for mid-end game.

I'm in some games where I cannot win and I have a choice to gain SC's or to "help the cause" where I may "help" but lose out of SC's... which in the end I'm still not the winner or draw"er"

( and yes, I know the correct title is "What ARE the objectives.." but I switched it to plural at the last second...)

Basically, try and get a /draw between the remaining nations. /draw is code for which you may cast a vote. Type '/draw' in the global forum to put one up

Well it depends. If it's PPSC, I would say you want to get as many SC's as possible, or a draw of equal or greater value.

I prefer WTA, and I would say that the secondary objective is to not let anyone else win... though this really falls into the first one.

A draw is acceptable if there is a stalemate or if you're a minor player unlikely to snatch a win because you'd be profiting from those chances if your chance to win the pot is lower than the pot split amongst the players remaining. Eg. You profit from a three way draw if your chance to win the game at that point is less than 1/3. This typically means that someone has a greater than 1/3 chance to win the game and is losing out by accepting the draw.

But outside of this site, where there are no points or pots. What was the intent of the game developers for the people who will not win or draw?

The object of the game is to win or draw. If you can't win, then you force a draw any way you can. That's it. There is no credit for anything other than winning or drawing. (Unless you are playing PPSC like Chris said, but we aren't talking about that.)

Well apart from F2F tournaments which have their own method of scoring, I would say that the objectives are really the choice of the individual player. I would say that it's roughly to maximize satisfaction in having played the game.

For most people, especially initially, that will probably come from winning the game, but this could change depending on how unrealistic that goal becomes or how eccentric the player is.

If winning becomes unlikely, players will likely shift their goal to getting a draw, surviving, helping out an ally or someone they like (perhaps for some meta-game exchange, like a date or a beer), or spiting an enemy.

Other objectives include trying not to tell a single lie, outdoing another player either out of spite or for reputation, trying to get the most meta-game benefit, making friends and socializing, getting a super long convoy, trying to tell only lies, forming tiny stalemate lines and hiding in the shell, etc.

Ah, Chris. Now you are walking in my yard. You are talking about perspective, which I have droned on and on about in other threads. I agree with you absolutely. We all have different motivations for playing and for doing the things we do in-game.
But, I think the answer to ag's question is win; failing that, force a draw.

For me:

1) Win
2) Barring that, force a draw
3) Get more SCs for my allies if I do win.
4) Get as many SCs as possible
5) Take SCs from those who damaged me most or made bad decisions.

Yes, Pan, I hear you, too. But, ag's question is..
"But outside of this site, where there are no points or pots. What was the intent of the game developers for the people who will not win or draw?"
I say that your points are valid, as are Chris's. But, the answer to ag's question is only win; failing that, force a draw. Those are the only objectives of the game.

Play to have fun.
Stimulate the mind.
Meet friends old and new.
Earn bragging rights or raspberries.
Enjoy the company of others.
And, crush them all like bugs.

This is a consipiracy, isn't it? You guys are trying to make my head explode, right?
/sigh.. LoL..

I doubt that you'll get a unanimous vote for your "/sigh" Ukla. I'd play for a draw...

I have to agree that drawing is the best option, but it is so difficult at n00b level where everyone attacks anyone but the guy on 14 centres.

i'm with Ukla on all points... the other extranious suggestions are more about the purpose of life... they read like a self-help book =P

except crushing all like bugs... that's actually in the rulebook !

I have to agree with TMG. Fun comes foremost, even before winning.

This is not gardening - winning is a major part of the fun :)

Yep, cutting down the tall poppies and destroying the weeds until one colour covers the map... Definitely a game for gardeners.

for me its
1)have fun, which is usually by winning
2)survive as long as possible, going down kicking and screaming
3)make the rest of the game as miserable as possible for somebody who attacked me when it hurt us both

Haha Ukla, you can't seriously believe that objective relativism (how's that for an oxymoron) is an original idea from your part. =)

My serious rule is:
1. Win
2. Don't let anyone else win.

But I can usually be persuaded to try out something fun, like a wacky manoeuvre, an unorthodox alliance, or a strategic theme.