Honestly, I believe the currently flagging is the most balanced. Let's consider the different types of flagging:

1) No flags. Players battle until one player has every territory. Problem: games get draw out and last 1 hour. Even if 2nd has given up 1st must still keep rolling to win. This is the original reason for flags - to end the game quicker when the outcome has already been determined.

2) If everyone, except 1st, flags then the game ends. This was a good flagging system and lasted quite a while. The problem with it is you could farm dominance very easily and you could ninja flag. For example, 3 players left, 3rd doesn't want to flag, 1st wants more dominance points, 2nd flags. 1st has more incentive to attack 2nd. Ninja flagging meant if you were the last to flag you could make a couple of attacks on your turn, gain position and flag to end the game at a higher position.

3) Instant flagging. We tried having flags to make you instantly leave the game. The problem is that if you're in last and you know another higher player can flag then you'll probably wait. The outcome was that in many games people would wait until you had 3 or 4 players down to 1 or 2 territories - the player in first laughing and gaining dominance. This was frustrating.

4) Position flagging. This flagging fixes the problem with the previous type, lower players know that higher players can't flag out and will flag when they know they are finished. It also fixes ninja flagging - once you flag you can only flag for lower positions. If two players flag for a position they have to fight it out, negotiate, or the server determines the higher player based on territories and dice. It also acts as a contract with higher players and solves the problem of higher players farming. Higher players know that a flagged player can't unflag and isn't a threat.

The problem with #4 thats being mention in my opinion is small compared to the problems that it solves. People respect flags too much. End game negotiations is part of the game and has been with every type of flagging. The real problem is that the current flagging is so easy that we have become lazy with it, use it a lot, and accept most outcomes. The better players will realize this and use flagging to get the best outcomes and this will include not respecting all flags.

With all this said, the problem I think that needs to be solved, and has existed in previous versions of flagging, is to make sure everyone knows that flagging is not a sure thing. If it were it would be enforced in the game. Since flagging for 2nd doesn't always mean you get 2nd it means that its not a hard "rule" and is open to using however you like as a strategic tool. Of course when someone doesn't respect your flag you're going to get upset, but this is part of the game like getting upset when several players decide to focus on attacking you - its part of the game. When people complain about not respecting flags you can point them here - or maybe an advisor can write a blog post about respecting flags.

I think it helps to consider the history of flagging to understand where it's at. If you have suggestions for improvement please volunteer them.

my words, grun, my words...

I use to say that I respect just intelligent flags...

The problem with #4 isn't the complaining, that's just a nusance. The problem is that first place respects the flag, allowing 2nd and 3rd to build up, attack and spread thing free of attack. It retards the system by removing the negative consequences of spreading yourself too thin.

But regardless of flags, you can always spread yourself thin and truce. The problem is that its too easy... an early flag like this should be seen similar to a truce.

[rant]Well the analogy of truce-flags has a certain flaw imho. The main difference is that you can't really refuse the flag. If someone offers a truce there's nothing to force you to accept it. Either it's benefical and you accept it (and the rest of the table countertruces) or not and nothing happens.

Flags, on the other hand, are sort of forced. When someone flags to you you can accept it (for the lamest 1-2 truce) or ignore it. But then you are the villain and the rest of the table can turn on you for not respecting the flags. Of course that is just another face of the people-respect-flags-too-much problem. I just say it's a problem of a technical nature rather than a human nature. Actually, and I never would have guessed I'd ever say this, I agree with biteme. Asking people not to respect flags as much is just a waste of time. How many players even read the forum, or the blog? [/rant]

And by rant I mean grunt. Just FYI.

Just played a bad game with a round 3 flag for 2nd. 1st thought it was ok. I convinced the rest of the table it was a truce to slow them down. But ultimately they succeed. A flag this early is an early 1/2 truce and shouldn't be accepted by the other players... unfortunately it seems like it is.

So I though of introducing postponing flagging for several rounds. I think it was round 5 at one point but we wanted to flag last earlier. Now I think this solution will work great:

highest available flag = min( 10 - round - players_out, 2 )

That means you can't flag 2nd until round 8. But if there are only 4 players left you could flag 2nd as early as round 5. Thoughts?

By min you mean max? As in if all players are in game the flags will be available as follows:

place-round
7th-3
6th-4
5th-5
4th-6
3rd-7
2nd-8

And each eliminated player lowers the round limit by one. Is this correct?

Well if this is what you meant it sounds good. I would like to be able to flag for the last place in every round though.

*in any round

you got it right... by min I mean a lower number but higher place (2<3)