Should I care about them if they say in chat BL. How offended should I be? What emotions do I need to convey when a player says BL. I want to be ready to show something to the rage building inside.

Honestly, should I care?

I don't see how block listing anybody is needed unless they intentionally not playing the game.

By the way, the title does not mean blocklisting anybody named Karen.

No need to care. I'm blacked by ~4500 people and it has no effect on my gameplay. QM, ladders, etc., don't even prevent you from playing someone you've blacked or who's blacked you.

It's mostly a way for socially stunted players to feel like they're inflicting punishment of some sort.

^^
What l4v. To reinforce, naw, you shouldn't care & don't even bother responding. B/c they've BL'd you, so they won't see your response, so it's wasted effort.

If you play literally anything else, not at all.
If you play diplos, it may mean targetting and backstabbing. Try not to behave like a bastard in diplos, or else consequences will occur.

I'm in a tournament where diplos are needed (and used) on a huge map. Doesn't makes sense in that context to BL based on a player's strategy.

BL matter

I think being blocklisted (or blocklisting) only matters if you play a lot of team games, custom scenarios or diplo's through the open game lobby.
As said above, most automatically generated games do not take the blocklist into account.

But for custom scenario team games I blocklist anyone that surrenders first turn, clearly ignores chat or does things like wantonly attacking team mates.
Not out of anger or to punish but just because I don't want them joining future games.

But I wouldn't expect (or see) a reply in either of those cases.

wow, what's wrong with surrendering in the first turn, for example when you have no chance?

Do you consult team members before surrendering in Round 1? Sometimes even players with "no chance" in the first turn can help other teammates win the game.

Blacklisting in diplos aren't because of strategy, it is mostly because of betrayal and unsportsmanship. The tarlwolf v. supi13 drama a few months ago is a great example.

wow, what's wrong with surrendering in the first turn, for example when you have no chance?

In the sense of "joining a game and surrendering as soon as it starts".

I guess that might be a valid option in games with auto distribution, maybe? But in any other game it's just a wasted game for everyone involved.

Oh boy. Is that a serious question?

wow, what's wrong with surrendering in the first turn, for example when you have no chance?

Well . . . if it's a custom game, a diplo game, etc, these are often created with a goal for each spot. 1 slot is supposed to be OP, 1 slot is supposed to be underpowered, some are meant to be mediocre, etc. And when 1 player just T1 surrenders, balance is skewed.

In other FFA games, there's simply the matter of someone surrendering means those around that player are either rewarded (empty lands to easily snag) or punished (player goes AI and attacks you when you were previously perhaps safe), etc.

In team games, you are an absolute jerk if you T1 surrender without consulting your team. Actually, it's pretty jerky to surrender on any turn without consulting your team. You individually may not have the vanguard role, but even a player with 1 territory and getting only 5 base income can make a difference in a game. Sometimes you have to be the pesty gnat, you need to be the speed bump, in order to facilitate the greater cause.

And if you can't handle that, don't join those games. Joining and surrendering T1 is obnoxious.

And if it's a modded game or a mega game . . . well **these cost actual coins to make. SOMEONE PAID COINS for the slot you consumed, so T1 surrendering is just super rude.

**these = 1 free modded game for non-members per week BUT some players might pay 2 coins/slot for a 2nd game per week; all mega games cost coins, just a matter of how many