Question about diplomacy

[licker]

Well the 'back stabber' crowd (though I think that's an inaccurate description, but whatever) wants you to do exactly what you are seemingly trying to do.

That is come up with all the rules and regulation *YOU* expect in your NAPs before anyone has to agree to something which you (generally, not personally) then decide later isn't what you thought everyone understood it to be.

Its simple, make the caveats in your NAPs iron clad, or accept the fact that they simply are tools of temporary convenience. I would imagine it is rare for someone to sign a NAP with the full intention of breaking it, rather as events transpire in the game which forces them to have to reconsider the value of the NAP they make their decision as to whether or not its worth 'breaking'.

Again, all of this is rendered moot by not agreeing to these ultraridiculous limiting NAPs in the first place, and yes, that means that even if you want that kind of NAP you need to be sure that the other party understands exactly what you think he's getting into.

But yes, there is always a price to be paid if you break any agreement, no one disputes that, however, the notion of some master list of who's a 'good' player and who's a 'bad' player is going to be so completely subjective and fraught with arguments over who broke what when that I think it would be more distraction and hard feelings than its worth.