25 members have voted
Personally, me as a man sitting behind a LCD screen, cannot stomach the recent spate of surrenders ending in white peace. If I was not in the government of any of the major alliances and instead a dedicated and loyal member of my smaller alliance, I would vocally petition all leaders to sue for reparations in some form. Even though we are merely playing a game, what is the point of fighting if victory entails a return to the start? Alliance membership are not pawns in a Presidents and Triumvirs' game. They are people who have spent many hours building their nations only to see them destroyed again. I cannot say for certain that alliances who have metered out white peace to their former enemies has their terms endorsed by an overwhelming, or even simple majority of their member base. But I would feel cheated if I was not even asked.
As the game continues to evolve into a post-Pacifican era, so must our approaches to the rigid Pacifican modes of alliance conception. In Pacifica, when the Emperor speaks, his voice thrusts with the unanimous cries of the Body Republic. However in other alliances, national obligations are less stringent and compulsory. Such is the FCC that imposes little restraints on what their members must and must not do.
In the war, we have had calls for Individual Surrender Terms and Alliance-wide ones also. In my view, if an alliance grants another white peace as part of a surrender, they must also provide for alliance members that wish to extract reparations from enemies that they have fought directly. Yes, more red tape and coordination would be required. But those who wish to be remunerated for their services deserve to have the choice of said repayments. I would of course, limit the reparations to the exact damage caused or rounded up to the nearest 50 tech/3M keeping the payments just and equitable.
I believe that members should have more input into the war that they have so bravely fought for their leaders, their brothers and their alliance.