"most of the cheaters already use skype/instnat messaging anyway", "The point is to mitigate cheating"

The problem is that using such a system would eliminate any hope for a self-defense mechanism against IM-based cheating, when no admins are around.

E.g. Now, if I know that I've been unfairly treated by pga buddies xy and yz (but I don't have enough proof against them to have them banned), I'd simply refuse to sit with them if I see them again, warn the others or attack them for round 1.

If I can't see names at the table, I can't avoid them or focus on them, since I can't identify them.

It'd mitigate cheating in some cases where you can't favour your friends (without IM) but it also means that you couldn't identify your enemies either, even though PGEs are perfectly legit and sometimes even necessary (against cheaters/stabbers). Although stabbing is within the rules but at least now you have to weigh the cons of a first place against risking a bad reputation (and getting pges). If reputation doesn't matter, vflags and truces would be useless, since you can always go back on your word at no cost to yourself.

*if I see them again, warn the others or attack them from round 1.
*you have to weigh the pros of a first place against the cons of a bad reputation (and getting pges)

And one last thing: although otf'ing might be seen as undesirable by most players, a slight preference for people you know and trust might be natural and mutually beneficial. The best players can establish a good reputation by reading the table well and being trustworthy and skillful trucemates. If you feel 'overwhelmed by pgas' and complain that no one around the higher tables would ever want to truce you, maybe it's because your inability to notice when people are moving away from you or your selfish/unreliable/unpleasant behaviour.

you seem pretty smart ididurmum, maybe you have some ideas on how to improve the idea too? instead of just poiting out flaws