Interesting responses, thanks folks.

To the folks who said I shouldn't angle for first: Was me flagging to purple an implicit offer of an alliance?

In other words, you seem to think I should have jumped in to help purple kill brown. But I only flagged to purple, it wasn't my understanding (at the time) that I was declaring an alliance with him. I thought "flag purp" meant "Should it become only the two of us left, I'll take 2nd." Similarly, if purple had flagged to brown, I would have gladly taken 3rd. Instead brown attacked him, and since I didn't feel I was obligated to help, I wanted something in return for helping.

So I guess my question is: after I said "flag purp" am I obligated to help him not die after that? Or am I obligated only to not attack him, and surrender should it become only the two of us left? (Or surrender before him if he flags to someone else.)

Also interesting, when it actually played out, purple was not angry with me at all. It was brown who was reaaally angry, which (I thought) was kinda amusing.

To the folks who said I shouldn't angle for first: Was me flagging to purple an implicit offer of an alliance?

You flagged to purple, which means at best you are second and purple is first. So, even if BROWN declares he is fighting 1/3, you end up third if brown wins (because you've flagged to purple). If purple agreed to a 1/3 fight you're in the clear. So you'd be fighting brown if he didn't- in no way is this you fighting for purple; rather, you are fighting for yourself and protecting your second.

This has come up a lot recently again.

My thought on it has remained the same... a flag to someone does not mean that you will end up in a lower position than that person... in my mind it is a request to not be attacked and a promise not to attack that person.

What monte is describing, to me, sounds like a one-sided truce (don't you hate that this word has been used in this way for kdice... makes it confusing). I will fight for you as long as you don't attack me and then I will finish lower than you no matter what.

Now, depending on the situation, I have treated flags in both manners in the past. It really depends on whom you are playing against and the situation within the game on which one you think, as deadcode points out, will be the most profitable play. Some of that just comes from playing this game for several years...

In this case, I think that it sounds (from the info given) that this was brown's fault. If he declared he was going for 1/3, but didn't get Jason's OK on it, then too bad. If, however, Jason agreed to it thinking that brown would never be able to pull it off... then I think it was shady to go back on it a few moves later and try to position himself for first.

One final thing... in the (hypothetical, I believe) example of monte trying to clarify what the flag for 2nd meant... that is exactly what you should be doing if you want to ensure that someone is going to finish behind you, imo.

I tend to treat vflags as only an agreement to not directly compete with said player for his position (ie. I won't attack you; and your position is not threatened by me).

Whether I let that person die vs another player is completely different decisions which I make based on my best interest. Very often it is better to help him because of the advantage that comes with the quasi-alliance that is inherent in all flags; but sometimes it isn't the case. For example; if you have other relationships at the table; that nullify the chance of counter and/or competitors for your position.

I have definitely won games where I have flagged and that person has died. I have no qualms about that either; a flag is a flag; it isn't a truce. Otherwise just truce.

maybe it would be helpful for an 'advisor' to create a blog entry and we could discuss the definitions of key terms/phrases that are often used on the site... might help those new to the game have a reference point to look at to understand what the common agreed upon meaning of the terms are. Again, I don't think that we should use it as 'rules', but as a guide to what would be the community's general consensus on them.

deadcode: "I have definitely won games where I have flagged and that person has died. I have no qualms about that either; a flag is a flag; it isn't a truce. Otherwise just truce."


I completely agree.

...

http://www.kdice.com/FAQ
http://kdice.com/blog/86
http://kdice.com/blog/48

none of those answer the question 'when I vflag to Blue, does that mean that I am guaranteeing that he places ahead of me?'

Flagging Rule #3 - An early verbal flag is often an effective truce offer.

sums up the answer to that question pretty well. and there's plenty of discussion about this stuff in the comments.

I don't get the connection between that answer and the question.