@ Athlete:
The problem is that such considerations are subjective. Both of your questions could credibly be answered in the negative by a reasonable person WRT the same-turn city gifting alternative action in this case. And, as I mentioned, the rules can plausibly be read as expressly allowing same-turn city gifting. Hence, I find it believable that a reasonable person would honestly come to the conclusion that it was permissible. So it must be demonstrated that such a position is NOT in fact tenable, and that any reasonable person would in fact have understood that same-turn city gifting was not permissible. That's the only way to justify the ruling.
The problem is that such considerations are subjective. Both of your questions could credibly be answered in the negative by a reasonable person WRT the same-turn city gifting alternative action in this case. And, as I mentioned, the rules can plausibly be read as expressly allowing same-turn city gifting. Hence, I find it believable that a reasonable person would honestly come to the conclusion that it was permissible. So it must be demonstrated that such a position is NOT in fact tenable, and that any reasonable person would in fact have understood that same-turn city gifting was not permissible. That's the only way to justify the ruling.