I've noticed that late in games when a player is basically out (especially when there is no bonus for elimination so people aren't as keen to go after the remnants) people generally have to ignore the game to get booted.  I've never seen a resignation actually accepted by everyone in a public game (granted I don't play that often).  I think it would be a nice change to either add a "skip me" button or better still just automatically skip anyone who has tried to resign when their turn comes up.  

That way we don't have to wait 24 or 48 hours and totally slow the game down.  As it is, if you click resign and nobody accepts it, the person just waits it out until they get booted.  This would be exactly the same thing, but instead of the game waiting for 48-144 hours for the guy to get skipped twice and booted it would continue at a better pace.

It seems like it would be a pretty easy change, right?

When you join a game, you agree implicitly to play each of your turns to the best of your ability. To do otherwise is to break the social contract of the site. Surrendering or stalling out impacts players differently depending on turn order and balance of power. I've lost games I should have won because somebody decided to stop participating (and I'm sure I've had the reverse experience even if it doesn't quite stick out the same way in memory). The only fair and sporting thing to do is to, you know, play.

So, I'd oppose any 'fix' of this nature.

I agree with both of you.  asm - yes it would be great if players would continue to play with good intention even when it's hopeless, but since changing human nature is impossible, I like the idea of quick boots for someone who has tried to resign.

When trying to resign, your boot timer uses a shorter interval. 

Normally, I can see most of the pros and cons in a thing - but I'm having a hard time seeing how the idea could be "Bad"...

Asm: it's ignoble - fair enough

anyone got anything else?

getting booted is (or should be a penalty) that lingers in that many players would prefer not to play with players who are booted often.   One less obvious problem with resignation and booting in general is that often the resulting position favors a certain player, or players, which is the reason that I do not accept resignations in many situations.  I'm with ASM on this one; the statis quo makes it uncomfortable for all, but no less easier on the player who's looking to get out of the game.

I guess I'd rather see some kind of boot penalty to encourage players not to get booted than to have a quick boot option.

I'm going to sound like a pain in the a##, but ranking by order of elimination would encourage players to stay in the game till then end, as you would have an incentive to keep playing till you're eliminated. 

I disagree with asm that's it's unfair to surrender in a multiplayer game, if there's no way to win, and you get no benefit from continuing to play, what's the point? How do you show you're going to continue to play in a way that's fair to everyone? 

As it is now, without the incentive of ranking my elimination order, I have the following strategies to get eliminated fast when's it's obvious I'm not going to win:

1. Surrender

2. Post a message on the message board telling everyone i've surrendered (some people don't notice the "accept surrender" box, but will see a message). 

3. Attack whoever is not accepting my surrender and/or someone who can eliminate me fast.

4. In very rare circumstances, tell one or all players exactly where my armies are.

All of these strategies have worked for me, and I've been in games with up to 6 or 7 players who have accepted my surrender after asking them to do so. 15-player games don't work so well for getting people to accept my surrender, but that's when I go for strategy 3 or 4.