1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.

I can see both sides of this, and naturally I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sure there are many reasons to play a game other than purely to win.

There's the obvious things like "to have fun" or "to engage in social company".

But of course you could have fun with friends sitting in a circle drawing hearts and puppies. So it raises the question of if all you want to do is have fun, then why play a game? A game comes with some objectives of its own. Namely -- the goal of the game itself as defined by the rulebook.

Let's look at an example that's pretty off the wall. Bowling. Sure the goal is to get the best score you can. But in a social setting it has not been unheard of for someone to do a silly thing like bowl backwards, play w the bumbers, etc. These things are all counter to winning in the strict sense, but they complement the moment, the fun, or whatever the group is doing.

Is it wrong? No not really. Among friends the win itself often is secondary to the experience. If it's a tournament perhaps you approach it with a little more seriousness, but then you are declaring your seriousness by your play in a less social setting.

I'll get kind of annoyed if I play games and ppl take them too seriously... like stacking their money so you can't count it, or constantly referring to the game manual for technicalities. Sometimes progressing the game and having a good time trumps repeatedly breaking it to look things up. If two players on opposite ends of this spectrum play against each other, it can be frustrating.

So where does online Diplomacy fall in that range of playing games for the social aspect vs playing games purely to win? This perception will vary for every player. I'd say for me a pointer on the scale would be around 70% to the strict / win side. That is I usually play to get the best result I can, but I also play to have fun.

Also you have to be flexible. Yes ultimately the goal is to win... but given you often cannot win, there are secondary goals. For example if you are stabbed early on, you might face elimination. Well before you can win you have to get back in the game, and to get back in the game you have to not die. So little things like "staying alive" trump winning, even if you risk someone else winning. Goals like "remaining viable" and "ensuring a place in a draw" are not unreasonable, for you have to get to the midgame before you can win.

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.

This is debatable. Yes everyone should play to accomplish the goals of the game... but we all have friends right? Surely you play boardgames against them? My wife and I will bite each others head off in a game cuz we enjoy the competition aspect... but that is a personality trait of ours and is not the same in everyone. In a board game should I only attack her because I know she wants to win, or should I attack other players equally, or what? All these things are simply decided by the social dynamic... that social dynamic cannot be removed so as to play a game as if we were all robots.

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.

I agree here. A strategy is good if it wins often, bad if it doesn't. Carebearism does work for me pretty well. I tend to make allies and trust allies, often doing for them before they'll do for me... this builds favors, trust. OTOH I also get stabbed a lot and wiped out early by being too trusting. But it works enough for me that I do it often.

6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.

I think flexible play is more important than consistent play. Sometimes you need to carebear. Sometimes you need to stab. Sometimes you need placate. So moreso than employing a strategy of your own, the importance is on identifying the strategy being employed by others to utilize that information to better yourself by being able to deal with all of them.

7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.

Clearly each game does not. We are people, people remember things. Trust, styles, tendencies, etc are all things you should learn about your fellow players. I wouldn't stab someone in one game because I was stabbed by them in the past, but I would certainly try to use what I know of them from past games to predict their actions in the next game.

If someone promises to keep you alive as a pawn... and you agree, and then they immediately wipe you out. And then a similar situation comes up in the next game, should really not use what you've learned in the past to help you choose? This is the most basic strategy of war... you learn from the past.