[earcaraxe]

I oppose the 10-turn no-hostlities rule. My reasons are:

1) won't help you significantly (or at all) if you are on the receiving side of rushing.
2) takes out excitement from the first 10 turns.
3) its an extra rule with very minimal effect (and it will make our game even more special).

and in my opinion these outweight the benefits.

...

I think the same (3rd point) about "overmaking" the rules of NAPs, for instance: making it mandatory to announce on forum or making it "binding", etc.. to sum up: making it an "official" term with given rules.

A NAP-breaker will be "punished" - given publicity - by community (for example with loss of popularity which i consider important in a game with diplomacy), just like it happens with breakers of given words in life. Of course, one can get away with it with skill and under some circumstances (just like in life), but this natural reaction adds price to agreement-breaking. My opinion - which is based on my experience ofc - is that its rare enough case for one to break his word to consider alliances and NAPs unstable (and im not living in some utopia).

To sum up: i think the argument (about NAPs) is about this: is it worth to improve reliability of NAPs (and other in-game agreements) by adding new rules?