I think this is exactly the point of the post.
Game theory is great if you know what game you're playing.
The teacher set up some fun, interesting and rational game-theory world. The students played some insane social status game, with completely different rules and payoffs.
I would put it this way: The students were playing a social status game combined with an academic success game. The teacher started a sub game of both of these games but failed to provide academic incentives for it, resulting in incentive to win the social game, so that's what they played and quite well I might add since it was zero sum and they resolved it quickly without any negative consequences from conflict. Would that all conflicts over fixed resources get resolved so cleanly!
Game theory is great if you know what game you're playing. All this talk of Diplomacy reminds me of this memory of Adam Cadre:
What happened? Why did Italy and Russia fall into line and abandon Austria in the second battle?
This utterly failed to demonstrate the "shifting alliances" that Adam thought the teacher wanted. Does this happen every year?
Yes, the students were coerced into "playing" this game, but elsewhere he describes the same thing happen in games that people choose to play. Moreover, he tells the first story to illustrate his perception of politics.