[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I've seen two kinds of NAPs offered.
10+3 (ten turns minimum, 3 turns warning)
3 (3 turns warning, min/max not specified)

And I've offered
'until late winter year 3'

I'd be quite pleased with dmentd's behavior, sum1won.

I prefer the 'until late winter' NAP best. I'll renegotiate, but it also gives some vagueness to my intentions, so nobody's certain exactly who I'll attack. And, in case of Veturi, gives Pangaea a chance to attack me first, and change my plans to compensate for that, rather than my intended target.

I will try to offer more responses, other than silence.
"Your messenger was treated to a feast, engaged in hours of diplomatic talk, but no consensus among the oligarchy(or oracles, or Angakuks) could be reached. Perhaps in the future."

I do agree, though, there's no problem in making sure your attackers have little to gain- a tendency to be an expensive or risky conquest with little reward is a good reputation to have. As long as you aren't being a sore loser, I suppose. Though I'm not certain precisely what a sore loser is... Well, no matter. I'm sure I'll form an opinion sooner or later. Don't read too much into this paragraph- its a thought in progress, not a final opinion.

I view NAPS as truces, at worst. At best, trade opportunities. Kind of how America's still at war with North Korea, and at peace (while selling fighter jet parts) to Iran, despite having warhawks beat their drums. Cultural, perhaps, but I'm used to not believing what my government's just done.