Re: Question about diplomacy
As would I, but I'm thinking more that there are two camps of people, those who assume NAPs as permanent unbreakable restrictive walls, and those who don't look at the fine print (even when it doesn't exist).
Obviously to get around this you have to either be willing to accept a somewhat underspecified NAP getting broken (so long as reasonable reason is given) or you have to hammer in all the clauses you are worried about.
In the case specified here I would be fine (though unhappy) with the NAP being broken as outlined (with 'fair' warning). Its not as though the breaker is doing a surprise attack.
Diplomacy should be more than just NAP to turn 60 and then stop talking.
|