[militarist]

Zeldor: community creates such rules like you described with one obvious reason - to protect games from ruining by OP players who turn the game into multi-month suffering of others. It's like a revolution in a country (the closed system), a thing which is very bad in general, but without one we still would have slavery. It happens when diplomacy just has no sense anymore. Everyone sees army size chart.

And, anyway, it's in bounds of the term "non-binding diplomacy ", so i don't say that some kind of game rules are broken. Just the diplomacy ethic in MY personal understanding is broken by the player who seems to have an understanding of ethics. And the NAP can be broken not because someone cast AN - that's YOUR PERSONAL understanding of widely accepted practice, again. And this opinion ,though formally can exist, doesn't add value to the non-written rules which are developed with the main goal - to keep the game playable and bring more fun. And you just ignore the context of things which happened. You could have right to be so formal in a case it would be a written rule in this game - "who cast AN should forget about after-cast diplomacy". If you are referring to a non-written rules, then you refer to player ethics. And if you refer to ethics, you should take the current context into account.

I.E. I understand what you say in general, but any situation has details. And we know, the saying "Devil in the Details". And we are discussing not justification of attacking the one who cast AN without waiting end of NAP. It's OK with it, it's widely discussed in forums in many threads. We are discussing situation when after-AN diplomacy was made, and this, at my humble opinion, should mean something.

Edited.