[booji]

This seems a silly objection from you eks. If it were specified in the deal that the time meant land tick not launch tick then it would make absolutely no difference to the hostility. It would be no more hostile than launching after tick 900. It was simply a proposal to get round tick 900 coming at a somewhat inconvenient time - as in practice given the way pa works you made a deal to tick 928 given how late the launches at tick 901 would be with cr it would be impractical. Since we wanted tick 800 choosing tick 900 was deeply disadvantageous for us and I am sure that chimpie knew it when negotiating.

Edit: also I am sure we (meaning the forums) have been through this before. Pa is sloppy in terms of its language. You use lt. Does it mean land tick or launch tick? I don't know so specify it in any deals. If not specified it can be either. You use 'hostile'. What does that mean? Is it hostile to launch a fleet you have no intention of landing? There is no contact, no conflict, no loss of ships. We could launch ships, you ignore because we have a 'nap' and ask us to recall. We recall eta 1. Was the nap broken? No it was resolved. Was it a hostile act by the alliance? No. It only becomes hostile when the alliance in question ignores the agreement and begins landing fleets. You should always specify that it is launching you mean. And if you really mean just launching irrevocably breaks the agreement then this needs to be specified too. Since we are talking about what was a cease fire there would clearly be no 'firing' until landing so land tick makes sense.
I know none of us do this (myself included) but this is in part because having a little wriggle room is good. We dont want a random member launching a random attack which he then recalls to destroy an agreement because it was too tightly worded. But you cant complain when that slight vagueness also allows an alliance to use it because it is within the agreement.