Check this out.
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1791849

Doesn't accept surrenders, won't end the game.

He may have been an arse but did nothing wrong.

Accepting an unnecessary surrender so early in the game can have a huge impact. There was no call for surrender there and the game specifically says to continue taking your turns until it has been accepted. It was his choice to get booted instead of playing it out.

As for your constant request to VTE, you obviously misunderstand. VTE ends the game with no winner declared. I would assume you offered to surrender around turn 11 but it was refused?

"won't end the game."

From what I see, patton offered to vote to end the game several times, all of which *you* turned down in chat.

There's something seriously wrong with people who join a game only to surrender on turn 1. There's no good reason to surrender that early, and no good reason to defend someone who does.

That said, reducing someone to a single territory and then not taking that territory is kinda dickish, especially in a realtime game.

reddleman, no argument on the first point, and its just that reasoning that I had no problem with not accepting his surrender.

As for the second point, yes it is dickish to not take the final territory. But its also dickish to not surrender when you are clearly defeated. I'll not lie, I have been in this circumstance before where I just let the game linger while amassing huge armies and conquering the globe. If my opponent is too stubborn to surrender when income is 100 to 5 then he should have his time wasted.

I'm not sure why you didn't want to vote to end. He was willing to end it early, but you persisted in not. Then you got mad at him for not accepting surrenders, and he was a jerk and made you wait in order to avoid hurting your boot record...


Welp, another reason to not play real time games.

You were both in the wrong, as far as I'm concerned. You should have voted to end, and that would have saved you a loss on your record anyway, in addition to not showing as a boot on your record.

Duke, from what I can tell, Madtown didn't even offer surrender. Hard to say for certain but I never saw him requesting/demanding that his surrender be accepted, merely talk of VTE.

What I got out of the conversation:
You: OMG Y U BOOT PLAYER WHO SURRENDER TURN ONE
Patton: Because it pisses me off that he surrendered turn one, if you want we'll VTE since I like free for alls more than 1vs1s
You: NO I B NOT NIC LIK U.
Patton: *Repeats previous*
*20 turns later*
You: OMG IM GETTING OWNED I GOTTA GO SRRY, I HATE YOU BLACKLISTING U K TNX BI. VOTE TO END PLZZZZZZ

Personally I hate people who surrender on turn 1 more than I hate the people that leave without surrendering or those that stall to the last territory. Why? Because it turns ruins the game right off the bat, it ruins it for your team (if you have one), and for the rest of the game. Personally I never boot and have auto surrender set in all my games, but I can see reasoning behind Pattons booting.

Meltdown said something about VTE many turns after patton did..
and was in such a rush so as to boot xavier on the first turn anyways..



Typhoon, patton booted no one, the poster of this thread booted them.. patton refused to boot and refused to accept surrender.. accepting surrender unbalances game.. *he joined a FFA to play FFA not 1v1* as does booting.. he was willing to wait 20min, Meltdown, who was at work *all day* was in such a rush he had to boot at 4minutes the first turn, and 10 minutes the second turn, because he would rather play a 1v1 then wait for the possibility of playing a FFA


and honestly Meltdown, whether you should or should not blacklist someone, is based on whether or not you enjoyed playing with someone and are willing to play with them again.. whether or not they are douchebags to the general public's eyes, or breaking any rules, or the spirit therof, is highly irrelevant

Part of the problem here seems to be a misunderstanding surrounding accepting surrender.

The option can be easily misunderstood. The exact language is: Surrender must be accepted - yes/no.

People take the yes answer to mean that you HAVE to accept any surrender. However, the actual intent is that any surrender HAS to be accepted in order to take effect. Madtown here was thinking it was the former and thus got upset that an early surrender wasn't accepted when he thought it had to be.

@Perrin....
Actually, the only reason I booted Chuck was because patton was content to let the game idle as both he and I had committed our orders, and Chuck had offered a surrender and then left.

And frankly, considering that we've never played before, I don't blame you for having this opinion.

@Richard...I've been playing long enough to understand what VTE means. I also understand what "Accept" a surrender means. My issue stands with people who won't accept a surrender that has been offered. Why add to someone's boot record when they have done everything they can to avoid getting booted? I also understand what "Accept" a surrender means.

@emoose, Duke, Typhoon...actually, I had already voted to end the game when he first optioned it. However, I continued to chat as if I wouldn't, hoping to play the game out for a while longer, perhaps earn a win. My fault for trying to be sly, no bones about that.

But honestly, given the responses to this thread, and rereading the chat, I did come off poorly. I accept that. Consider this dropped.