Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
That depends entirely on what's stated in that deal, the case here is only because of the words used in the deal Bart posted, namely the word compete. And it seems crystal clear by the way that dictionaries phrase it that included in competition is any actions(even going as far as to include unconscious acts) which aim "to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others". Thus because of the definition of the words used it cannot be solely limited to direct ingame acts by Bart.

If the cf agreement with RoO was a standard you cannot attack us before X date and any notice has to be sent atleast Y hours before attacks can be made then scheming to gb a kingdom does not violate those terms.
If the wording was less specific and instead only says something that no hostile acts may be taken against us before X date, notice before Y time yada yada yada etc. Then I would agree that scheming to arrange a gb is definitely something that should be considered a hostile act or causus belli and therefore the scheming party is in breach of the agreement.
If you want to argue the semantics of a NAP (non aggression pact) by saying its OK to have your friends it someone prepping to war you before it expires (and encouraging them to DB the target in the process), then the semantics of what it means to compete when youre only barred from competing with 1 KD are up in the air too.