In this situation the best talking (usually me) wins.

vflag deadlock.

problem with vflags addressed to a specific person.

it all depends on what a vflag means to you. because a vflag means many different things to different people.

my take is that a vflag means:
"i will not attack you, i will place below you, therefore please dont attack me".
another interpretation, like red here, seems to be "i wont attack you do not attack me either". which is a questionable interpretation and completely different ballgame er dicegame.

based on my definition and IMO:
red has seen teal flagging to you.
teal/red should have clarified that by flagging teal he flags you also.
red should not have attacked you.
teal shold have enforced that; without your flag, teal would not have been able to focus on red and win.
it is not red's "good right to compete for 2nd place", as you say, if he fights you in that situation. teal is #2 or worse and by flagging him red has accepted that he will end up no higher than #3.
contrary to the way the game had developed red should rather have attacked blue, since he has a vested interest that you achieve a good position. if you get #1, he will be 3rd. if you lose to blue, he will end up 4th.

this is all theory, of course. many players have a different opinion on what a vflag means, and some simply wont care to follow the logic of the flag order. reds behavior is questionable in my eyes.

you should not have flagged red. you should have protested and turned to teal. if one or both dont follow your line of reasoning, all you can do is end that game and put red & teal on your watchlist (questionable behavior) for future reference.

coincidentally, *you* are on my watchlist for questionable behavior.

Red flagged to Brown, not to Teal. There is no problem here.

I guess red is not supposed to attack you, as scara said. When he flags teal, that implicitly means he flags to you too.

I really don't like this solution, I think he should be able to still compete against you. Unfortunately, I don't see another way to resolve it that doesn't allow for paradoxical situations.

You kill teal for being a faggot. At least that would happen if red and blue weren't faggots themselves.

It must be transitive. Red should be automatically flagging to you when he flags to Teal. Or else there will be some confusion, it's not his right to fight you at all. Anyway, I've noticed that many players don't agree with this(which is stupid btw, but many humans just don't think) so I've decided to do the following. I only accept flags if that flag helps me get first. Or if I know that I am totally going to dominate and I don't need to go after the flagging player. I don't let people who flagged me fight MY war. I simply let them help me achieve what I want. So ethically red was wrong, but I'm sure you could of played better to avoid this situation from the first place even if it takes not accepting teal's flag.

sit out to avoid thinking and decisions.

i agree with A monkey slayer

this is all about spamming the chat, making teal feel guilty for not helping, after all he flagged to you. and then making teal help you. you can usually get him to do a few attacks, maybe on average one per round, or one per every other round. often that will be enough to win

if flags aren't transitive then they are just simple truces without giving the next position below you to your partner. and in that case, it is a backstabb to watch how the one you flagged/truced gets killed by someone else who flagged/truced you. => if the one who flagged isn't a backstabber. <=>flags are transitive. q.e.d (notice: we could argue with truce>flags too, for those who are interested.)