How do you define a NAP?

[Amhazair]

I'm actually of the opinion that anything that is anonymous and thus can't be traced back to your nation is fair play. We are talking about becomming the one true god here after all. Sometimes you just have to dirty your hands. Erm, I mean the hands of some mad, rogue, underling you've never heard of. Of course, most of the time you are friendly with someone you have a NAP with and thus there is no reason to bombard them with nasty spells, but if the situation calls for it, I don't see why you'd refrain from using them.

Of course, the flip side of this is that if the target of these spells suspects it's you who cast those spells, he probably will be mildly annoyed with you

[Loren]

I would assume a time means that much notice to break it. I would not object to stealth units passing through that do not do harm by their mere existence. I would expect permission to be sought for sending through anything else, including a stealth force that might accidentally take a province.

I would figure it means no hostile rituals even if anonymous.

[Darkstone]

While my MP experience is limited, I have so far seen in effect: Temp NAP for 3 turns after first border contact, Standard 3 turn NAP's, 10 turn NAP's with shared intel, and NAP until X players remain in the game.

If scouting is not specified, I tend to specify scouts only, no other stealth action.

While I never specify anything about temples, if someone was pushing some negative dominion (deadly like Ermor or C'tis or just plain bad scales) I'd be pretty displeased, and make it clear.

Same goes for rituals, never specify anything. But it tends to be pretty obvious pretty quickly who casts what. All one has to figure out is means, motive, and opportunity. The easiest method is who benefits most (this works equally well applied to politics, government, corruption, etc).

[Agema]

I would suggest a breach of NAP as anything that causes you loss of units, income, territory, gems, and domination (except by border expansion). Although as someone said above, I'd consider building temples and preaching along the border that pushed back your Dom grounds to complain.

Someone sneaking their way through your lands would therefore be basically legit unless specifically demanded. A sneaking unit that was accidentally discovered and was stompy enough to defeat the PD or otherwise harm should merit an apology and compensation for lost income and gems, or be considered a breach of NAP.

* * *

One thing that happened in one of our n00b games was that someone signed a 3-turn NAP and thought it meant no attacks for three turns, the other no attacking without a 3-turn warning. That caused a bit of a fuss. Since then, I've generally specified which I mean.

[kasnavada]

I more or less stick to agema's definition, and I also consider massing large amount of troops (100, 300+ depending on the map) near a border a possible breach of NAP.

[thejeff]

I also generally specify that only scout are allowed to sneak through, though I'll usually grant permission if requested.

Using the NAP period to fill my lands with spies, assassins and/or stealthy troops to incite/kill/attack deep within my kingdom on the turn the NAP expires is something I wish to avoid. Obviously, if I don't find them I can't claim the deal is broken, but if I do...

[Tuidjy]

I require that I am imformed if something 'stompy' is crossing my lands without
being set on 'retreat'. I also will complain about a wall of temples being
built on my border, or about blood sacrifice. As a matter of fact, I am
about to cancel a NAP because of that. (not break it, although I was tempted)

But in a game where I have inherited a low dominion from the previous player,
building temples on a border where your dominion is already one province deep
into my lands is clearly a provocation.