Marsyas wrote... "silent trucing: it's not fair, if you are going to force someone to be 3rd, make it from equal position so others can counter, we are not here to collect points."

not sure I understand this. A silent read on the table, whereas two players choose to move away from each other because it makes sense strategically instead of fighting without openly mentioning in it, then gaining and an overall advantage on the board as a pair in my opinion constitutes a silent truce. You criticized me recently for failing to do just that. I was backed in a corner, you moved away, I ate some of your tail. (my only choice as opposed to just sit). You claimed I hadn't read your move as being an alliance of sorts.... alright, I'll buy that, but I'm a little confused as to your comment here. On the 500 tables, taking reads such as that is in fact common play, not sure how this is unfair.

i just think it's more fair to declare it after some rounds, so we don't get to these typical lines

player A: flag player B
player B: i silent truced player C
player A: then i don't flag, counter
or
player A: ok i'll take 3rd then

it's in the grey area, so i just think u :

either both move away from each other and to each his own "fight his own battle till the silent truce expires after one player finishes his fight earlier",

or declare it so others can counter be4 being forced into 3rd

it's not really practical and a bit of grey area, but any two top players can "make up" a silent truce so easily "i didn't 8v7 you so we are 1/2". which is basically bs coz even 8v6 defends.
so basically i might take advantage of my silent truce partner based on how strong the friendly move was, which would never happen if the truce is declared.

it's a grey area and am still sorting it out tbh, but in that particular game i was pissy all day and i did ruin your base badly or killed you i don't remember. so i guess attacking me wasn't a good idea in that particular game.

had a sense it had to lead there but I was left wondering. Helps to clear it up, thanks

If you always declare it I don't have a problem with it and it is obviously not cheating even if you do it every single game.

The problem is that when you 'tend to truce' with somebody else almost always it is a silent truce and if people try to counter you both will deny you were even trucing.

People have done this routine so many hundreds of times with the same people they have it all down perfectly including exactly how to deny they are trucing in chat and make excuses for not accepting flags and stabbing and blah blah blah

I agree with Stringer: OTF=PGA

I think there should be some rule about this where people who 'tend to truce' with each other must declare they are doing so in chat when they do it or else it will be treated as PGA.

i agree with you keeley, trucing and denying it is so lame.

I've never tried to deny what I felt was a silent truce in progress. At the very least I will state... "yes, although not confirmed I was "under the impression" an unspoken truce was in fact underway". That said, although I haven't kept track, I've probably had a dozen or more "new ones" installed into me where I thought a silent truce was in fact happening but, alas, was shown different.. :p

OTF != PGA.

I like several people and hope that they read my moves and so on. If the situation is like it, I'll kill them nevertheless and vice versa. This would not happen with a pga.

Like others and myself befor, you may not like otf, but it is not possible not to have it. PGA, sitting as an aprioi team, is different and much more into cheating. There is a difference.

I like how Mars plays; I think more people should play like him.

He is always a tough competition for 1st if he is on your table.

competitor*