The reason why I like Kdice and why I started to like the play-style at 2k tables is that if everybody play to maximalize their profit, in a great majority of games it leads to a good and quite even fight. Months ago I thought that all the truces and flags only screw the game, that the mad fight which still prevails at lower tables is actually much more fun. Yeah, I still think that a game without chat is good one, but if the chat strategy is done well, the games at higher tables can be even better.
If everybody play as they should, the most often best outcome is 2v2 truce and counter with usually equal enough sides. One would say that 1-2 truce is actually the best option, but suprisingly in most cases it´s not true. The shape of the map is an important factor, usually it´s better to truce an annoying neighbor than the distant 1st, 1-2 truce is punishable in the beginning etc. I believe the most logical choice of all players in most games is to make two equal alliances and have a good fight (unfortunately it´s not as often as I would wish, stupid flags ruin good games).

But I see two things which still poison the game:

1) If you deal with someone, you need him to be trustworthy and FAST. If I propose you something, I open my cards, I am fragile at the moment. You can exploit me.

Model situations:
a) I am fighting you and winning so far. I can cut you right in the middle, but I do not want to continue, it´s possible that your suicide into me would ruin my chances to get 1st. I say "truce you" or "flag to me" or something. You say something like "well..." or "sounds interesting" or just stay mute till my turn is over. Then you stack up the land where I could cut you and hit me back.
b) You are weakly stacked and I have 3 fully stacked lands next to you. I know I can´t beat you, but I definitely can ruin you. I say "flag you", you stay mute. Then you stack up and kill me.

And I would be able to continue... The point is that I reveal my intentions, you exploit it by letting me believe you accepted it. It seems to me, that this behavior is still not being punished by bad reputation, but even encouraged as good and fair strategy.

Why it decreases the quality of games? Because it´s not safe to propose deals which would be advantageous. I believe, that bargaining without constrains would lead to the most fair and fun games as possible. So if you limit the options by unpunished moral hazard the games lead to stupid "hey, i flag too" to weak 1st because people are afraid to reveal other offers. It even makes it difficult for new-comers to shine at 2k tables for couple days (so they whine about pga there), because before you know someone you can´t trust him not only that he won´t plainly break his word (this is actually not that often anymore), but that he will fool you this way and no-one will support you. When someone break a flag, the others usually join forces to suppress him. This subtle and (in my opinion) unethical behavior is never punished.

So my first PLEA is:
WATCH the game.
READ the chat.
ANSWER immediately.
Be CLEAR.


2) Many of post-game hassles are about the concept of flag. It seems that "i flag" has two distinct meanings, at least I play it this way.
m
Model situations:
a) Huge guy going for 1st next to me, I am desperately fighting with 4 lands against someone with another 4 lands. I kill him but only to be very weakly stacked. So I offer my flag and the huge guy accepts. He sacrifices his expansion by that and eventually become to be in a position to flag 4th with 4 lands. I am much stronger by then, but because I owe him so much, I will either take 5th or help him to get higher than 4th. My flag was an ACTIVE FLAG, I told him by flagging "hey, I won´t let you finish below me or I will try to do everything I can to help you".
b) I have 7 almost fully stacked lands, the guy next to me has 10 strong lands. I think my chances to get 1st are low, so I won´t fight him. If I say "I flag" I mean I won´t attack you and I won´t challenge your position. Play your game, I will play the mine. But if you lose the fight for 1st, don´t demand me to flag 3rd. It´s a PASSIVE FLAG, I won´t threaten you, but I don´t care about you. I don´t owe you that much.

I think there is a major confusion during games which sort of flag the flagger meant. Especially in tourneys where certain position sends people totally out hence flag is a much more important tool, being 4th or 5th can be crucial.


THEREFORE I propose to start using aflags and pflags to state it clearly what you mean. That will save the time and many misunderstandings.

So in my playbook:

Truce = we are going for 1st, 2nd (3rd...) and I will do everything I can to secure those positions for us. We will fight either when nobody else is left, or if we both agree on that earlier. This deal is unchangeable unless we all agree.
Counter = we are going for 1st, 2nd (3rd...) and trucers die first. Neutrals can be sometimes killed before them if they were just hiding in the corner and the truce was "fair". This deal is unchangeable unless we all agree.
Aflag = I flag below you unless you die despite my best effort (and I couldn´t flag out or it would be extremely unfair to demand me to do so, because I would sacrifice more positions than you would get). I will support your, which is obviously implied by the first statement.
Pflag = I won´t touch you and I won´t challenge the best position you seek. But if you go for 2nd, I feel free to go for 1st. If you go for 1st and lose, I feel free to let you be 3rd.
Cool = either verbally expressed or silently implied, I gonna repay you a favour. But if me or you truce someone or you hit me, it´s over. If someone flags to me, I feel free to decide whether I accept it and let him take your position or I want to give you more for your help. In most game various "cool" across the board are the decisive factors, it´s hard to follow everything which makes the middle-game interesting.

In my playbook, there are no semi-truces, no major exceptions without mutual agreement. I believe I always play this way, even if it´s very disadvantageous. I never try to fool anybody. When I do not want to accept a flag or I have some additional conditions, it is my right. But I say that immediately. If I truce, I will do even silly moves just to protect a dying partner instead of playing safely to win myself. If I aflag, I won´t accept 2nd for staying apart but I won´t demand 2nd for helping the guy whom I flagged to either.