My initial response was a bit of an exaggeration, playing devil's advocate, but I have some more fine tuned thoughts on the topic. As far as the link I posted, the real problem was that Austria promised Russia to pass-through Rumania in one of the early years, but Austria lied and stayed in Rumania while shifting units on Warsaw. What this points out, in my opinion, is: It doesn't matter what you do, it's how you do it.
If you are in a game and the situation comes about that you naturally grow to be the largest power, great. If you have to lie/stab to become the largest power, like the game I linked, then that's where trouble can come about fairly quickly. In my opinion, the concept of which generic approach to a game where each individual game is extremely unique, to force some sort of generic approach on that specific game is the wrong approach. I do think it is valid to discuss different approaches, since I believe each situation requires a unique approach based on that specific situation.
Not sure I'm making much sense here, but I take the Seinfeld approach to diplomacy. Just as "nothing happens" on an episode of Seinfeld, I try to "do nothing" in my games of diplomacy. Things obviously do actually happen on an episode of Seinfeld, just I as obviously do submit orders and send out press in a game of diplomacy, but I seldom attempt to inforce my will on a game, I merely react to what I perceive is happening around me.
For example, I often attempt to allow my enemies to choose themselves, rather than deal with the guilt of targeting any one person in a game. I'll chat with everyone, and if someone is secretive, gets angry easily, doesn't talk much, panics easily or something else that I don't view as conducive to a long term alliance, then I'll note that and compare my gut take on them with others in the game and that may very well result in me butting heads with person. That said, sometimes everyone is nice, and then what do you do? Well, one game I played as France, I had a DMZ with England in the EC, one with Germany in Bur, and one with Italy in Pie. Everyone seemed very nice, there was no conflict with me and any of those people, so I didn't know what to do. I immediately found myself, the next turn, attacking EC, Bur and Pie all at once! Sometimes instigating a bit of controversy can be pretty telling. Both England and Italy were pretty cool about it and could see I was not shifting everything at them and even though it was not what they wanted, we could talk through it a bit. The German, on the other hand, flew off his rocker, cussed me out and got me the info I needed. Germany died shortly thereafter! ;-)
Okay, I've gotten a bit off-topic, and rambled on a bit as well, but to summarize, I think there are many valid approaches in general, but each unique situation requires a unique approach. This brings me to the quote on my profile, which is straight from the rulebook:
"Diplomacy is a game of negotiations, alliances, promises kept and promises broken... Knowing whom to trust, when to trust them, what to promise, and when to promise it is the heart of the game."
)
30 Minutes Left
)
)
)
)
)