I recently played in a 3v3 real-time game (5/never boot) in which the 3 opposing team members surrendered (not instant surrender) on the same turn. Only one of the players took his turn, while two did not commit their orders (I assume they left the game). The players from the other team accepted each others' surrenders, however, one of the players on my team did not accept any of the surrenders, and left the game. He HAD taken his turn, so he couldn't be booted.

My question is this: Is it morally incorrect for us to boot the two players who didn't take their turn because one of the players on our team neglected to accept surrenders? After about 8 minutes we decided to boot the two players, and then boot the last player on our team who hadn't accepted. The reason I felt this was justified is that when players surrender they are still responsible for taking their turn until their surrender has been accepted. One of the booted players was upset about being booted however.

Was I in the wrong?

Perfectly justified. I might have waited a bit longer (~15 minutes) but would have done the very same thing you did. It is a known fact that you are supposed to complete your turn(s) after surrendering.

And by little known, Richard means to say that every time you click on Surrender and it needs to be accepted, you then click on a box that says that you will take the rest of your turns.

Most of the time I don't bither surrendering and waiting for everyone to accept. I just press the close button :P

That got you your 15% boot rate, and thus you are excluded from hundreds of games. Most people don't allow anyone above 10%.

Figure this, there is no way your game could advance without booting. Waiting a little longer is fine, but you have no moral obligation. I'm quite annoyed by people that surrender and leave the game without making moves if not everyone accepts, but I'm even more annoyed by people that threaten with blacklist and to suicide-rush into you if you don't accept. I'm not forced to accept your surrender, you are forced to keep taking your turns or be booted. As a sidenote, I usually do accept a surrender if I'm the only one left and he's about to be booted (no difference there, unless surrender/boot aren't both turning you into AI), though he doesn't really deserve it.

While threatening with blacklisting or suiciding into the person who won't accept, neither are against the rules. (On a related note, if anyone ever told me "do what I want or I'll blacklist you", I'd not do what they want and return the favour; that's not the kind of person I want to be playing with anyway.)
As for the moral aspect, that's rather difficult since we have a very varied audience here; morals are not necessarily the same for everyone (for starters, the problem with any war game: do you go with gentlemanly sportsmanship, or "all is fair in love and war"?).

there is noting immoral about booting it is the rule and they agreed by joining sure booting straight away is bad but boo frickin hoo

"While threatening with blacklisting or suiciding into the person who won't accept, neither are against the rules."

Very little is against the rules. However, I find it sad I have to blacklist such intellectually challenged people, especially if they're quite involved in playing. I'd rather they change (or are forced to change) their behaviour so that I'm willing to play with them again. It's not fun a game is ruined, but luckily they won't ruin another game of mine.

There is no easy "good" or "bad".

For some Players it's easier to get booted than surrender. I don't wait 15 minutes then. I usualy boot after an unanswered "booting at X min."-warning.
In an other Game it's no Problem to wait, when opponent asks for an houre, because the kitchen burns down or something.

Then there are this Players who comment their lucky-strikes with "you are dead" or just "gg". Oh, I hate that. - Of course, my problem, but I feel realy realy better with booting them at 00:05:01.

Guess there is no realy Moral-Basement to decide when to boot. In fact, sometimes you have to boot, sometimes you shouldn't. Just find out what feels best.

Always accept surrenders even if you hate the dude just to be the adult of the situation. That's how I deal with these situations. If one guy is holding up his agony he has the right to but i'd blacklist him for I wouldn't want this done to me. I wouldn't yell "I'm gonna blacklist you!" I'd just do it.

Well, not an easy question.

Simply because it depens one various principles that differ from player to player

My openion is:

That you should never force an enemy player to play a game that he does not wish to continue to play. Regardless of what he accepted from the begining, things could have changed since then.

So basicly my openion is that whoever hosts a game where people have to beg other players for surrender is not a sane person(my openion).

The way the rules are, I don't think you had much of a choice there.

If a player was mature enough to surrender and not just leave, whoever hosted the game should have been mature enough and have instant surrender.

Sometimes team m8 wouldn't like a team member surrendering but have him continue to stall the enemy as much as possible, however the surrender option should be only for team members not for the enemies too.
I'd rather not have it then having to beg the enemy to accept my surrender or wasting my precious time playing a lost game.
This is a valid reason why people just leave and in my openion its something that must be improved.

I will accept a surrender almost automatically for whoever wants to surrender. I don't think it's my place to decide someone should play a game they no longer wish to play. I will delay my acceptance for a turn or two at most if having the player continue to take a turn would require an opponent to defend another border against a player I'm currently fighting. I believe having to accept the surrender is for these cases.

However, I'm in a situation now where on turn 3 of a 3 v 3 game my teammate got autobooted after 14 days of vacation. My teammate and I asked that we vote to end the game as 3 v 2 in this type of game is not a contest if the opponents have any competence (I have no reason to believe they are incompetent). One player refused which is his right. I suppose he wanted a win in his record. But the real kicker is that it is a practice game. So a win won't show up in his record.

So both my teammate and I have surrendered. Now they won't accept the surrender. We are now on turn 7. They have had plenty of time to accept. But they choose not to because ....?

Here is the game for those who want to see. http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2936168

So my only choice now is to get booted or auto-booted and have it show up on my boot record or not. I haven't seen a definitive answer on whether getting booted from a practice game shows upon the boot record. I've blacklisted two of the three players and will bet booted in a few hours.

LivnLarge, just do a dummy move at the very last minute/hour you're allowed to (without it being possible to boot you). In a XvX game, a surrender should always be accepted by the opponents, unless you really like the person and his style and you kindly ask him to continue playing. It's very different in an FFA.

Personally I always play my move before I surrender. There seem to be a lot of guys who like to have their e-peen stroked and insist you carry on playing. They boot... I blacklist. Its just a game.

"There seem to be a lot of guys who like to have their e-peen stroked and insist you carry on playing."

This implies Fizzer was wrong (and likes to stroke e-peens, hurr durr) by implementing the option that surrenders aren't auto-accepted, if turned on. If you don't like playing with this feature, join games that don't have it turned on. I am not obliged to accept your surrender. You are obliged to make your move or be booted. Anyone can blacklist for any petty reason, so nobody cares if you do for booting after you have surrendered.

But, again, if I'm the only person remaining to accept someone's surrender and it's near auto-booting time, I'm kind enough to accept.

That's pretty much how I feel Dark. I wouldn't join a 1v1 or team game that doesn't allow instant surrenders, but I understand why you have to accept surrenders in the 2v2 ladder, and I participate in that ladder despite my preference for instant surrenders in that type of game. I accept surrenders when offered and I continue to play even when I surrender, because those are the settings I agreed to by signing up.

When it comes to FFA, I can be happy with instant or accepted surrenders, because both have very valid ways to be played. There are strong points in support of either option.

The only non-instant surrender that I simply cannot even understand is in 1v1 games, but that's a pretty rare situation.