Simple: the penalty (both ELO and count) should be WEIGHTED. The more games played in the set, the higher the penalty. Why? Because this means that both players have already invested more time and effort into the set (or sets, in the case of multiple sets), and why should the "good" player not get more reward if they are leading 5-0 and the sixth game is 30-0 and the "bad" player quits at that point.
Sure, the bad player get the 3% penalty of ELO, but it would be more fair and more just if they get a weighted penalty per game played. For example, if they quit after the first game they get 1%, after the second 2%, after the third 3%, after the the fourth 4%, after the fifth, 5%, after the sixth, 6% and in the case of a quit in the middle of a tie break ... 10%!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Seriously, Manutoo and everyone else, doesn't this sound like a good plan??
please let me know, (btw, the numbers can be changed around, but the idea of an incremental, weighted penalty is the ONLY fair and just solution to problems of punishments and rewards - this last of course is only based on the philosophical and jurisprudential ruminations of a near madman!!!)