Partly Psycho. But I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding here. Both sides believe they are playing it fairly.
It isn't that one side thinks NAPs don't need to be kept (which is the view of some on the board). They both do. But one side does not think they have a NAP.
What is more NAPs affect diplomacy and the whole direction of the game. If Zenephos believed that the NAP deal had been agreed then he may NOT have built up to attack Moderation. He may well have found a new enemy or concentrated on research and held his armies in reserve. Likewise had Moderation realised there was no NAP then he may not have got involved elsewhere and so have been more prepared, or even struck first, along their border.
I am not sure anything can be done but carry on now, although that obviously is not that great for Mictlan.
I don't think (unless someone is flat out lying) that either have behaved dishonourably. It is simply a misunderstanding. I think I would have assumed, as Zenephos did, that when his counter offer was not agreed to it wasn't accepted. Although I would have asked for a clarification.
If I offer a 3 turn one I may not consider a 2 turn NAP counter offer as sufficent guarnatee and so I may be better fighting hm now rather than later when I am engaged elsewhere. It would depend on the situation I was in and the other player's situation as I saw it. But there are no rules here that I know of and I can see why Moderation might believe he had the deal. I would certainly trust either one - at least to sign a NAP with
