It's entirely stupid that people have to accept for someone to surrender. Most of the time people surrender then just stop doing anything in game, waiting to get booted.
Why can't they simply be allowed to quit, without stalling others game?

I agree. There are some people who won't accept surrenders either. They force you to keep playing.

True, it is the worst when a player says they refuse to accept a surrender and then a boot is necessary, especially when it is a multi day direct boot game

I personally don't like this idea because I like to use the surrenders to my advantage in games. If my enemy across the map is busy trying to get rid of someone who surrendered, they are using resources that would otherwise be against me.

I understand that when someone surrenders they are pretty much saying "I give up. I don't want to play anymore", but their need to quit shouldn't stop the other people from using their presence as strategy.

I do feel an exception to my thoughts is 1 v 1 games.

Agreed.

Ruthless, the problem is that if they don't want to play, they simply wait to get booted. And in the end the result is same, as if they were allowed to quit on their own, except that players in-game have just wasted couple of hours/days. You simply can't force people to play.

Ruthless: We all know that it can be of great advantage to not accept a persons surrender, but not accepting it just to benefit you is ridiculous. By not accepting it you defeat the purpose of the surrender, period. It should be if a person has not shot at winning they surrender, not 'oh this may help me if I refuse to accept it and force them to hang around a couple more turns'. In my opinion thats both a cheat and lame....

it depends on who are you playiong with.

There are people who seeing they are going to loose stop moving and get booted.
there are others, who feel that fairness means they should defend themselves until their surrender is accepted.

Solution would be to add option "JUST QUIT" and leave surrender as it is, cause it allows to decide to "I lost and we may and it or you may finish the mop up"

I tend to go with the concensus, if the majority of the players are accepting surrenders, than I accept them all (whether advantagious or not), if the majority won't acceppt them, then I don't either. I just get pissed when players accept surrenders for players when it benefits them, then refuse to do it when it doesn't in the same game. That's playing by two different sets of rules in my opinion.