[archaeolept]

neither have I planned for it - it is not like I was expecting you to teleport tarts in to territories in active dispute. The status of the NAP is highly questionable due to this being the end-game, and due to your own actions.

I will consider those territories as a legitimate target, as well as any VP area, in accordance w/ necessity, and following your own prior justification, though I am also willing to wait until next turn before any action. I certainly cannot trust that you will not decide to do something similar again, and so cannot deny myself from acting in a like manner.

If one desires to maintain the "technical" sense of a NAP one should perhaps consider the results of pushing a NAP to its limits. Either your anonymous rituals, or your interjection into the eriu territories, could reasonably be considered aggression and so proper casus belli, not even counting the fact that we are now fighting over game-winning VP's. Potentially game-winning VPs trump any prior agreements, anyways, through the logic of necessity. Trying to win behind a technical assertion of a NAP would be inane, IMO. "it's not likely any of us would get that last VP by then" is not sufficient guarantee.

I figured it would be best to discuss this in an open and clear manner. NAPs are not rules internal to the game, but dependent upon mutual consent and understanding.

In passing, it is also a good reason why such long NAPs are best avoided, as they are much more prone to lead to such issues.