Obviously assuming chat is enabled...

Unless something explicitly say it's diplomacy it isn`t. So just ffa would mean NO Diplomacy. at least that's how i think of it.

^

I would say it depends.
Unless otherwise specified, I guess it would be up to each individual player.
Also what does one mean with diplomacy?

no you can Allie i guess but you don't have to declare war

yeah like gg said, in ffa's you can obviously ally, but in ffas where it doesnt say diplomacy you dont have to declare war, which is why i blacklist anyone who starts complaining about being attacked in a ffa

Well this solved nothing. I guess it goes back to read the rules?

Did you even read the responses?

ffa does not have to mean you attack each and every player you have borders with... mostly if someone will defeat you easily if you weaken a 3rd player... thus, some degree fo diplomacy is allowed, though i liek to think in it as havign a truce, alliances are some a bit different

For some reason a lot of people seem to think that FFA means act like an AI with better tactical skill. As Pink says, attacking everyone around you can be a bad way to win, and that's true whether private chat is available or not.

I've said it before, and I still believe that a pre-arranged alliance or certainly any agreement that involves multiple players helping a single person to win are against the spirit and purpose of any FFA rules. Skillful manipulation of your opponents so that they work in your favor against their intentions is fine, but if they never intend to win, it makes the whole game pointless.

I guess the answer to the original question depends on what is meant by "Diplomacy" here. Since it's capitalized, I am thinking that it refers to the specific game type that is popular lately, which requires declaring war. In that case I would say that unless it's declared in the rules, an FFA game is not "Diplomacy." As for whether an FFA game means no talking, no truces, or no alliances, that's entirely up to the people involved or at least the game creator. I'm personally not interested in a no-agreement game, but I can at least see the point in such a game.

Also you can't expect everyone to play by the ideas you have.
Say I join or create a game named "6 FFA"
I expect I'll have to fight 5 other people in order to win.
Private message is disabled, so all chat is in the public channel, but no where does it say that making pacts aren't allowed.
Now 'Average Anton' and 'Normal Joe' starts close to each other, and they on the chat arrange for a no attack pact.
Then 'Bob the Bully' gets annoyed because of their pact, as it's a "FFA" game, and rage quit, and 'Happy Henry' don't really mind, slightly off put having to fight two who's not fighting each other, but else is fine with it.

Neither is really wrong in this example, and my point is, unless specified otherwise, anything goes, but not everyone will have the same ideas and/or guidelines as you.