[Fyron]

Obviously my comments were directed towards a game in which only one person is the ultimate winner.

That is not how the vast majority of PBW games are, so you are specifically narrowing down the realm of possibility. Any non-team game can end if only the members of a particular alliance are left, and they agree to end it. They are all the winners in that event.

You said it's about using dimplomacy to get them on your side. That is in effect controlling them. You are getting them to do what you want are you not?

That is the goal of diplomacy, yes. It does not require any direct controlling of them though.

If you can somehow manipulate a player to do something that is counter to his interests in the game he has made a critical error. You cannot force him to make such an error.

Forming alliances is not an error.

Basically, you need to stop limiting the game to the specific free for all format where there is no possibility for allied victory, as that is the only context in which most of your arguments on the diplomacy issue make any sense at all. In the more general sense, forming alliances is a standard part of the game. Noone has to stand alone unless they want to or get really really unlucky. I have formed tons of alliances in all sorts of games, and there has never been anything forced about them. I never had to control them into allying with me. It was simply "want to ally?" and "Sure!" (usually more verbose than that, but that is the basic idea).

It is the difference between a flat, unequvocal statment and one with conditions and qualifications. My objection is to the unequvocal nature of your post, and so on that basis the two statments are worlds apart.

My initial statement was not a flat, unequivocable statement. It very clearly has a conditional qualifier on it, "used correctly". Those two words make all the difference. It may not be the qualifier you want to hear, but it is indeed there.