if someone goes ill sit for 2, that sometimes implies a 1/3 fight, but often, the player wh wants 1 from 3, must tell 2nd that it's guaranteed even if they lose, that the person sitting for 2 gets 2,,,, usually involves some MSAKing

i think 2/4 challenges are great but its kinda more of useful tactic when "shads" verbal flags are not used. the reason i say this is because certain people think its right to flag someone then beat them. when theres 3 people left on the board and person A flags person B, person A doesnt get to say to person C that he offers a 1/3 between person B and C because he flagged him, thats basicly backstabbing. but a solution to this is that person B kills person A for being a douche, but this strategy is good for if there is little communication in your game, say if one person flags 3 when there are 4 people left and one person is the clear winner, you can say to the one person who flagged 3 that you want to fight the person in current 2nd instead of him, starting a fight where one person gets 2nd and the other 4th just saying 2/4 in chat can make this simpler i guess, but the first idea is dishourerable and your basicly screwing the person who in most situations has spared your life,

so in short terms i find some cases acceptable and other not

--troy--

Whe had this discussion before.
I agree that one should not place higher then the person he flagged too. And because this gives the flagger an interest that the other person flags high, early flags should get countered in most cases.

btw the "flag then sit" tactic is often used to cover PGA: Player 2 (quite big) flags to Player 1 (small but big stacks), often blocking his buddy (Player 3). Player 1 accepts because he thinks Player 2 will fight Player 3 for 2nd. Then Player 2 declares he´ll sit for 2nd and lets his buddy win 1st.

*...that the other person PLACES high...

msaking

But problem is then there are 3 players left on table and one of them have flag. In that case he has secure 2nd.

and maybe in the meantime while other players fought they grew, and became bigger then he. He can lose his secure 2nd easy in that case. So player who flagged him must fight with other player 2/3

I completely disagree with the notion that you can't finish higher than someone you flagged to.

I also disagree that you should feel obligated in any way to help the person you flagged to get the highest position possible. That is a truce, plain and simple.

It is fairly easy folks. Here are the definitions, as I see them, in their simplest form:

flag: a 'promise' not to attack someone (without their permission) and a 'request' that they do not attack you.

backstab: attacking someone that you have previously flagged to without their consent.

truce: an agreement between two or more players, either formally through chat or silently through actions, to help one another achieve the highest positions in the game possible. A truce should always supersede any subsequent flags from outside the truce (aka "truce > flags").

If you agree with these definitions, then the question about the 1/3 or 2/4 fight should become clear. If A flags to B, and C want to try to fight B for first place, then A should try to guarantee that he is 'at worst' going to be in second place. Here are the scenarios:

Both B and C agree: A is guaranteed 2nd place and he sits.
B agrees and C does not: C will likely be attacked by both A & B. If C then also flags to B, A & C fight for 2/3.
C agrees and B does not: A still cannot attack B, but B might die before A, leaving him in 2nd. If B flags to C (and C honors it), then A ends in 3rd position.

Dont agree,
"If A flags to B, and C want to try to fight B for first place, then A should try to guarantee that he is 'at worst' going to be in second place. Here are the scenarios:

Both B and C agree: A is guaranteed 2nd place and he sits.
B agrees and C does not: C will likely be attacked by both A & B. If C then also flags to B, A & C fight for 2/3.
C agrees and B does not: A still cannot attack B, but B might die before A, leaving him in 2nd. If B flags to C (and C honors it), then A ends in 3rd position."
If B have flag bz A he cant die first if he doesnt accept to fight 1/3, cs A in that case is better then B, but B didnt accept that

sry... I do not understand you post:

"If B have flag bz A he cant die first if he doesnt accept to fight 1/3, cs A in that case is better then B, but B didnt accept that"

I cannot follow... please spell out all of the words. My guess is that you are saying that if B does not accept the 1/3 deal, that A cannot finish in front of him??? If so, you are incorrect, according to the definition I presented. Again, you are implying that A has an obligation to finish lower than B once he flags him, which I disagree with. A couple of scenarios can play out if A does not agree to the 1/3 (without a backstab):

B kills C... A gets 2nd place.

B is beating C and C flags to B. A and C fight for 2/3.

B is beating C and C flags to B. B does not like that A was going to let him die and he kills A (or tries to... but at that point A is now able to fight back since the flag is broken and a new 1/3 could be offered to C, or a truce is made, or anything else.)

C is beating B and B flags to him and C accepts. A is now 3rd because he is effectively flagged to everyone.

C kills B completely, then A gets second. Either B never flagged C or C did not accept the flag because B was effectively trying to make it a 2v1 against him by not accepting the 1/3 offer from A.

None of these are an example of a backstab. A never attacks the player he flagged to, unless he is first attacked and the flag is voided.

These are the obligations involved in flagging, as I see it. In reality, of course, if someone feels like they need to flag out before someone that they flagged to, it is a nice thing to do. Depends on the situation and the impression that player wants to leave with someone.

What I think is shady is going 2v1 on someone that is just looking for a fair fight for a proper position, but again, it is not against the rules.