The Magical Adventures of Stormsend

Ours was "Because we like money" iirc.

I think TOP resolved not to request reps regardless of any circumstance after Karma. I thought that was what Karma was about. I guess I am wrong.

Quite frankly, all the moaning about so-called reparations, and an alliance’s entitlement or lack thereof to them, must stand as one of the silliest most laughable debates currently raging across these boards. While some individuals like Lamuella have gone into some depth discussing the nature of reparations in CN, you have come with an overly simplistic view of both the role of reparations and one’s right to them, without providing either a sufficiently robust reasoning to support your position, or a bit of witty, intellectually satisfyingly amusing prose to offset the lack of the former, which I must say is rather disappointing stormy

‘Reparations’ in CN, broadly refers to payments of Cash and or Technology to victorious alliances from those they have vanquished, or the payment of the same to resolve a conflict without resulting to force of arms. These payments then from the loser, guilty party, or group seeking to avoid conflict for past wrongs, actual or perceived, fill a number of distinct, although obviously interrelated roles. Broadly speaking, any individual in a position to receive, or demand such payment is by definition entitled to receive them, and for reasons which will hopefully become clear after the complex nature of these payments themselves become clear, the relative strength of this entitlement, is almost equal across all parties capable of assessing them for a given conflict.

What then are the purposes of ‘Reparations’ as used on Planet Bob? Generally speaking we can divide the functions of reparations into several broad categories which can be further subdivided and expanded, but I’ll leave that to a proper ‘elawyer’ or political philosopher to waste their time with

‘damages’ the recovery of losses suffered by the victors as a result of the conflict, regardless of direct causation

‘restitution’ or the recovery of assets taken by the enemy (especially relevant in cases of tech raids or aid-thieves)

’punishment’ a sort of fine for bad behaviour (ie, starting or escalating a war, poor conduct during said conflict, keeping bad company, associative guilt, ect

’price of peace’ it is a general proposition of war that a party can attack its opponents until there is simply nothing left to attack, and thus peace is granted at their discretion, for which it is reasonable to charge a price, alternatively one could explain this ground as the ‘final shot’ in the economic element of war.

’dissuasion/deterrence’ if a party knows that they may suffer consequences which would affect their nations (most specifically their ability to rebuild/grow) for a reasonable period after official terminations of hostilities (to say nothing of their diplomatic/political standing) as a result of entering a conflict they will be less likely to do so, unless they are strongly convinced as to the correctness of said course of action, arguably leading to fewer nonsense conflicts.

'incentive' if a party knows that they might be able to recoup some of their loses, or even potentially profit from a conflict, they may be more likely to enter a conflict to provided assistance, than if they saw the war as a zero sum or absolute loss venture.(note this may be seen as at cross purposes with the dissuasive function of reparations, which is true, but life is just full of these sorts of lovely paradoxes isn't now?)

Taking the above into consideration, it would seem to me that it logically follows therefrom that a party who has war foisted upon them, even if their own eventual involvement in a conflict was inevitable, and who subsequently, either because of the fatigue or lack of will of their enemy, or for their superior numbers, or performance on the battlefield, can prima facie demand ‘reparations’ as part of the conditions for the cessation of hostilities. Similarly, a party who of their own choice enter a conflict, for whatever reason, and do so to either their determent or benefit, and who contribute to the conditions which allow the initial party(s) to claim reparations are equally entitled to claim them as said initial parties.

Edit: Misspelled a ruler name.

They still have the right to ask for reps, it doesn't matter what their reasoning behind it is.

The reason people fight to win, and don't want to surrender, is so they won't get shafted like this. That's why we drag oneanother down in war, fighting so we aren't the ones getting screwed over.

Also, we fight to win the war.

I think TOP resolved not to request reps regardless of any circumstance after Karma. I thought that was what Karma was about. I guess I am wrong.

Karma is retribution for past actions

Once that happens, the fields are even

Balance shifts again after

it's been a while since WAPA was last put under terms, you'll have to forgive them if they've not updated their sensibilities since First Shark War.

I think TOP resolved not to request reps regardless of any circumstance after Karma. I thought that was what Karma was about. I guess I am wrong.

I think you need to get out more and stop looking at the planet through your beer, vodka and LSD goggles.

I think TOP resolved not to request reps regardless of any circumstance after Karma. I thought that was what Karma was about. I guess I am wrong.

Without a doubt, you are wrong.

-snip-

Noli, I think I love you.