Not me. I like to play a rational game and intend to assume the same of others. In game friends and enemies are born out of in-game circumstances. Emotional considerations as you describe above are suboptimal. But I can't help it if previous experience makes it easier to read another player, and that might influence my decision process.
Also actually stating "wanna be friends again" is a tad meta-gamey for my taste.

Typo ... *tend to assume the same of others

The person I tried to do this with actually insulted me and called me names during the game.

When someone gets stabbed repeatedly by another player, it's hard not to expect to get stabbed again. I don't carry that sort of thing over from one game to another. I see a stab as my fault (a genuine stab and not merely me fighting someone or a group of people). If I lose in a game, it irritates me to no end but I get over it.

@ Spyman
Would that be "a tad meta-gamey" in the sense that Hitler was a tad right-wing :p?

Truth be told my, memory of past games is generally so poor that I couldn't carry a grudge against a player even if I wanted to. Thinking about it, though, it could be that I carry a grudge against certain styles of play. If I've recently finished a couple of games that involved being stabed by the sort of player that uses a lot of flowery language, and then I start a new game to find myself next to a player that communicates in the same style, it may well be that I carry a bit of prejudice and he ends up being my prefered target.

I'm going to have to watch out for that... It could be a problem...

That's why I think anonymous is best. That way you're just talking to the country, not the person.

I've found myself simultaneously stabbing someone in one game, being stabbed by them in another, and allying in a third. The only thing I really take from the names is competence level.

Agreed. Plus metagaming of this kind is bad.

this is pretty much metagaming (which is why a lot of people prefer anon games). Having said that, I've made friends inside games that carry on to outside games, but when we play that second game, it is no holds barred. I may ally again, I may stab early. It is just a game. Enemies shouldn't be created simply from a game.

I've made many enemies in real life on this site.
Like yeah, one time down at the mall I met this guy from this site, the one who betrayed me several times... I grabbed a knife from the Home Depot and stabbed him in the back. When the police came I said I knew he couldn't be trusted. They were like "oh, okay then." I mean I had proof.

Seriously though, I started this thread and I guess some people do it.

I try and remember competence, even if I get stabbed. If someone is a good player, I'll be more inclined to work with them if we cross paths again

Remember how they play, you may be able to use it against them in the future. Like if they take available openings at stabs every time, you can probably guess and counter a stab out of pure repetition. Or watch how they make moves, you could easily counter it if they do the same old moves every time.

Had to stop playing face to face diplomacy with close friends when I was younger cos of the bitterness that resulted... Mainly from my admittedly frequent, bare faced lies.

A friend of mine told me about Diplomacy some years back. I didn't know it then. He warned me against it. Said he'd lost friends. I cannot bring myself to buy it.

http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic536690.jpg

I've seen more than one game where somebody made an extremely vulnerable opening, assuming that the person who was their ally a previous game would still ally them in the next game, only to be immediately and devastatingly stabbed.

Glad to see some veteran opinions here.

Each game as it comes.

I play everygame as a new game.
This is because I believe that when you enter a game or race or competition of any kind. You are making a commitment to your fellow players to do your utmost to achieve victory by playing fairly, honestly & within the ethical rules of the competition/game/race.
In diplomacy, when you realise that you can not win you then have a duty to try & ensure that the game is drawn & no one else achieves the victory.
You fight a diplome until you are eliminated.
The reason for this is that winning should be an achievement & valued & respected by all players. It is greatly deminished in value when players go into civil disorder or do not try or cease in their efforts to diplome a turn the minds of their fellow players to the ever changing task at hand.
As far as I am concerned, carrying alliances & freindship agreements forward from previous games is a form of cheating (ethically).