14. If someone is surrendering for having to leave, accept their surrender.

I disagree. I've played plenty of games where boots and surrenders are treated differently wrt turning into an AI. I'll boot someone (be booted myself) to get them to turn into an AI rather than accept their surrender to get neutrals.

You should always accept their surrender. People surrender because they think they are loosing or can't win or need to leave. People would rather have their surrenders accepted than be booted. You should discuss with your team before surrendering.

Edited 3/24/2016 14:02:11

Number 7 is kinda tricky it just turns the game into a gangbang, since a player who had a good chance to win must fight two opponents.

Rule 27. When you make a super long post always include a TL;DR

And i'll do one for you!

TL;DR-be good y'all.

Giving yourself the best slot in a diplomacy is not making it fun as you put yourself at a higher advantage and that's no challenge. Scenarios that are unfair to certain spots are that way for a purpose. Join in at a random spot so you are at a equal advantage.

Edited 3/24/2016 16:06:43

17. If private messaging is disabled, this means the host does not want teaming or cross teaming, so do not team or cross team.

Not necessarily, it just means the hosts didn't want people to team up without everyone else knowing about it.

23. If hosting a custom scenario game, do not give yourself the best slot unless you say this in the description.

23.1 : Do not make rules which give advantages to your slot.

Edited 3/24/2016 17:33:28

28. You must attack Public Enemies (PEs) in diplomacies if they refuse to comply with reparations (or any other rule regarding PEs).

e.g. WW1 Aftermath template game by Kretoma (ongoing)

Angry Koala jumps the gun on attacking me, he surrenders (for God's sake I can let you off once) then goes on vacation, not everybody accepts the surrender and the turn takes 2 weeks, and all the while other countries are claiming they can still attack me even though a PE has illegitimately taken income from me.
(towards the start of March, for more twattery, check out Guderian's reaction to becoming PE in the same game around the same time).

I think it would also be beneficial if we blacklisted people who go against the code several times, even if they don't agree to said code.

Edited 3/24/2016 18:20:39

So in a diplo you are only allowed to attack someone as long as you aren't winning? As the game emerges and a strong player rises he becomes public enemy and gets blacklisted for winning the game (as long as he isn't the host of course).

#1: Don' expect serious comments on the forums.

21 really is a piece of shit.
If someone refuses to accept my surrender in a FFA then i use every army i have against that player, ignoring all else i will seek out the player and suicide against him.
If I want out of the game and he is single handedly forcing me to continue then i certainly won't help him by attacking his adversaries.... In my opinion he doesn't deserve to win

29. If you feel that your point doesn't make sense in the forums, do not hesitate to post a meme.

The Code of Honor:
-Respect other people at all times
-Follow the rules

GTCOAL, I like your rules. But basically, it can be summed up into "don't be a dick." Unfortunately, you might not get the full WarLight experience by just using the forums. There are many nice players out there that do not use the forums. I used to go on the forums more often but then I quit, realizing that if I like the game, I might as well play it instead of worrying about something else happening on the side. I admire your willingness to try to get something changed, though.

I don't follow most of these rules but I like your effort!

forums.taleworlds.com

mount and blade warband beta 2009

Either my post talking to cade was deleted, or I'm dreaming that I posted there...

I read it Fleece.

To me I believe every action in a game should be directed towards winning. Otherwise it is game-throwing. If you full on attack the person who does not accept your surrender, this is not made to help you win. If the host has made surrenders that must be accepted, he is giving the choice to every player to keep them in the game. If you want to be able to leave a game whenever you want, join games where surrenders do not need to be accepted. One of the reasons I made this forum was to point this out to people, as most people believe it is fine to do this.

If player A has the most armies and apt.
Player B is winning and is a best player.
Player C is obviously going to lose, but is only bordering and fighting player A.

Situation 1.
Player C surrenders, A no longer needs to fight him, A wins.

Situation 2.
Player C recognises and respects the game, and understands that he must stay for the game to be fair. He does not surrender, and the better player who was player B, wins.

It not heard anymore people saying "may the best man win" in sports and games. People say Good Luck Have Fun, and end in Good Game. However if people have not had good luck, and are not having fun because they are losing, they are not going to say Good Game.

If people said MBMW(This should be a new abbreviation), then they wish that no matter what happens, the best player will win. By surrendering when you are losing and because you are losing, you are rejecting the fairness of the game and giving a player that is not as good as another the win.

Fizzer has, as everyone knows, made the game a game of strategy and skill, not a game of levels and experience. He wants the game to be as fair as possible, but people reject his dream by surrendering in these circumstances.

It is wrong, unfair and mean to surrender because you are losing.

GTCOAL, I like your rules. But basically, it can be summed up into "don't be a dick."

I agree with you, but some people have broken consciences due to continued wrong, so they need a guide to tell them the good from the bad and to fix their conscience.

Also, I stated that I did not want rules on diplomacy games, as in diplos it is legal to become PE, it just comes with punishment.

Edited 3/25/2016 03:06:21

"Rule #1: Obey All Rules" -Barney Fife

"The First Rule of Warlight is you do not talk about Warlight and the Second Rule of Warlight is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT WARLIGHT" -Fizzer Durdin


I know other people have already jumped on rule 21 and I'm here to do that as well. If I want out of a FFA game, I want out. (And my reasons for wanting out are nobody else's business). For someone to try to keep me in a game that I don't want to be in is dickish on every level. It essentially boils down to them trying to manipulate me into doing their bidding in the game. For them to do that is within the rules and because of that, I would never blacklist a person, but I will attack them.

And for the record, you mentioned that you shouldn't change your strategy. Technically, attacking them wouldn't be changing because when you surrender, your strategy IS to exit the game. Attacking the person preventing that from happening is a logical extension of that same strategy.

Seriously, change rule 21. It makes no sense.