First before I begin let me lay things out on the table. I was a member, and leader with NATO for almost a year with ties to NPO before the face of Bob changed so much. I also was a "target" of NPO's eyes for sharing information from tC that was shared within NATO leadership with another alliance that they had ties to, causing me to have to step down from my leadership position.
I also strongly disliked the power plays of NPO in regards to sole ownership of the red team. I liked the protection of red team members, I think that was pretty honorable, and hope that someday maybe collectively purple can do the same to protect our trade partners and color unity. I think anyone that pays attention in game knew the programs and it became part of the game.
I have had a few personal dealings with NPO in the past and have been treated with respect, dignity and honor, minus the "secret" sharing (which honestly wasn't anything major and just confirming of suspicions).
I also want to say that my alliance disagreed with the actions of NPO and since have learned that many of the allies of NPO advised against the action that caused this whole mess in the first place. That being said...the terms presented to NPO in my personal opinion, may have been too harsh through its designation of who would be paying what. I agree with the move that those in peace mode should have to have a limited war. That is a tactic used in the past, but designation of WHO sends aid from the alliance in terms of reps honestly is stepping into alliance sovereignty. Honestly, we all know NPO can move an obscene amount of money and tech. Hell our small alliance of about 40 nations has moved over 200 mill in a month without too much difficulty...I think the amount of the terms was fair, and NPO according to statements has even offered to pay more with the no restrictions on who does the aiding.
So moving forward, what terms would be fair? I think the monetary reps were acceptable for NPO. They could have worked it with their internal management. I think nations that were in peace mode, should have either a limited war (7 days for the smaller nations is acceptable). Those failing to exit to peace mode should be zi'd with the understanding that it is exam time, and summer so a fair amount of time to comply (week to two weeks). Limited military helps alliances recover financially, I would rather see a limitation on ability to declare war...suspended treaties, and approval from an assigned "oversight" of the opponents. Not a viceroy, but approval on any FA actions until reps are paid. Allow them to defend themselves against hostile actions, but not against whole alliances.