1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
Let me quote the rulebook, 4th edition:
OBJECT OF THE GAME
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is said to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.
There you have it. Solo equals win. Winning is the object of the game.
I know some ignore that. With all the adverse consequences I have described. That's after all why I issued this call to arms!
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.
If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
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.
It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
Since pure carebearism discards that possibility, it's a total clusterf*ck.
Carebearism and NMRing are IMO the two banes of the pbem hobby.
For it is written:
Thou shalt not carebear!
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.
I enjoy this euphemism you introduced.
Are you in advertising?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
A winning attitude would be a good start.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
I try to approach each game in that manner.
