I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them.

Hi, Sean. Yes, I know these were left a little vague. I did that on purpose, the point being to prod people to focus on the assumptions they are making which may be limiting both their success and enjoyment of the hobby.

But since you asked, I'll see what I can do to help by posing a question for each premise.

1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?

2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?

3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?

4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?

5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?

6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?

7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?