Section 5. Espionage
5.1. Both members agree to not exceed 100 espionage spending against the other before the beginning of turn 160.
This is the exact wording. How you guys read it?
Sorry for not responding to this, I have been very busy with new job.
Bottom line: CP has blatantly broken the NAP. There is no defense they can raise to say they have not violated. We can attack them without mercy or remorse immediately if we choose with not even a slight smudge to our honor.
Explanation: "not exceed 100 espionage spending" can mean 1 of 2 things:
1. That you can't build more than a total of 100
points on the other team; or
2. That you can't run espionage missions that cost a total of more than 100
points on the other team
If it is #1, then you have violated as soon as the total amount of
points that you have built is more than 100. It does not matter if you build up 50
points then sabototage a tile to spend them, then another 50
then spend them, then another 50
and again spend them. It is no defense to say "my espionage ratio with you never read more than 100" because your "spending" (ie, your slider usage/ points allocation) caused you to build up a total of over 100
points. Therefore you have violated the NAP.
On the other hand, if it is #2, then you have violated as soon as the total amount of
points that you have
used (by running spy missions) is greater than 100. In that case, you could theoretically "build up" thousands of
points on the other team as long as you never "spend" them by running spy missions. But once you have run a total of 100
points worth of spy missions, you have violated the NAP, regardless of what the espionage ratio says your current
point total is.
So either way, CP has broken the NAP and we can attack them at our pleasure
Additionally, CP has broken the
spirit of the NAP, because the whole point of setting the limit so low is to allow demographics reading, and maybe tech choice knowledge, not to allow constant spy mission attacks. CP knows this, so again, any way you slice it, they have broken the NAP. If they try to say
"Well we just disagree on the interpretation... we interpreted the NAP to mean that we just needed to keep our
number on you below 100 at all times
then we can reply
"There is no way that you can expect us to believe that you interpreted the NAP to mean that we were allowed to run poison water missions on each other. Our NAP was an alliance of friendship. You know that, so don't waste your breath trying to say you thought that our alliance NAP allowed you to poison our water and starve our cities. There is no reasonable way you can say that."