The Easter Sunday Accords

[jer]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='05 April 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1270469626' post='2248989']
Aimee Mann - hehehe...

Aren't you that guy that checked [b]every single[/b] option in the Gre poll? I actually double checked, it [i]was[/i] you. I hope that you won't hold it against us if we ignore you from now on, on the basis of thriving on conflict and questionable logic.
[/quote]
It is my duty to abuse polls where possible. But yeah, ignore me at your leisure chief, I'll try not to get too offended (since you've been so polite about it).

Edited April 5, 2010 by Aimee Mann

[Trinite]

Well the first couple months were fun. Glad to see this finally over.

[TheThirdMark]

May I congratulate everyone participating in this war?

No?

Well, still gonna do it.

Good luck with the peace and rebuilding and dont feel ashamed to drop by and clear out FOK's pub to talk about the great days.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='05 April 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1270468119' post='2248973']
All in all, I feel hurt. I'm an attention-whore, and you paying apparently no attention to what we say, do, and stand for... it hurts me. It aches in my id.
[/quote]
No, I'm not criticizing MHA for this action. I've been paying attention to what MHA's been doing for a while now, like ordering Blue sanctions on non-nuclear nations. It's been different from what you guys have been saying.

I guess I miss John Rocker. If this is a revival of his spirit, then that's a good thing.

[Lord Rune]

What would the position be regarding IRON and DAWN paying reps to C&G, if they unconditionally surrendered to Gremlins who demanded tech be paid to them first?

[Penkala]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='05 April 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1270441086' post='2248510']
At the same time, we did not have much of a choice. Agreeing to pay reparations doesn't make them fair or anything of the sort. Pacifica used that same line of reasoning to justify the reparations you paid and I distinctly remember some of your members comparing it to having a gun held to their head. The feeling is similar.

Aside from the reparations, fight well fought, gentlemen.
[/quote]

MK should have just pulled the trigger imo.


Nah, good luck on rebuilding and such. Please don't drag your feet on reps like NPO!

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946']
Furthermore, if it were not for the precedents set by you, I would have thought 270k tech as unthinkable today.[/quote]
And with this, we have finally drawn your underlying motivation out into the open. As I had suspected earlier, you are motivated only by the pursuit of excusing Pacifican crimes of the past, with your posts amounting to nothing other than factually inacurracte criticisms of Complaints & Grievances, coupled with a dash of the Pacifican victim complex. You see, this statement goes to the heart of what we are discussing here. As the total technology held by individuals and alliances have increased over time, so have the absolute number in reparations extracted at the conclusion of conflicts. This is a process that is not limited to the Hegemony, the Karma War, or the Bipolar War; rather, it is something that has transcended all politics and continued unabated. This is why the only valid, honest method of making a comparison between the severity of peace agreements is not Letum's "gee, let's see which one has more digits" but to investigate the proportion of technology that had to be transferred, in combination with the burden it put on that alliance.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946']
Psychological factors are also not quantifiable, nor material. You can claim just about anything as being psychologically detrimental, including "you were mean to me" or, "I do not trust you". Trying to assess the actual strain upon an alliance based on it has no hard data and forms a slippery slope that can be used to justify or condemn just about anything.[/quote]
So, because it is not quantifiable, it is not relevant? Also, there are factors that are quite clearly more detrimental to an alliance than others - for example, the disparity in psychological consequence between an alliance having to transfer 90% of its technology and being subject to a few nasty comments in the public arena. You are being intentionally obtuse.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946']
If that is wrong, then please explain how, ceteris paribus, had TOP held a tech level of 800,000 at this moment, they would consequently be able to pay more reps. Would their nations have more slots? no. Are their nations currently unable to self-buy tech if they ran out, giving them an advantage if they had a larger pool? no. Ergo, the factor of total tech level is irrelevant when judging ability to pay.[/quote]
As you have brought up - both in the description of your own reparations payments and this hypothetical situation - the method of firstly using surplus, remaining technology at the conclusion of a war, and then supplementing that, if necessary with self-bought technology, I will ask you this. Would you rather be in:

A) A TOP that possesses 50k technology and must pay 100k direct technology,
B) A TOP that possesses 444k technology and must pay 100k direct technology,
C) A TOP that possesses 800k technology and must pay 100k direct technology.

Since you employ the method of firstly using on-hand technology to make reparations payments, there appears to be a clear winner out of the above.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946']
My argument has been very consistent: your transparent attempts to fool people into thinking that the large amounts your group is in favor of imposing are somehow "reduced" by an unquantified and magical factor that you first call inflation, and then proportion to tech level are irrational and false. You have yet to illustrate how the factor of having more tech is in any way capable of giving an alliance extra production ability, instead being content to make unjustified grandiose claims. Tech is not some form of interest-bearing investment - the first 1000 costs as much as the last 1000.[/quote]
I have made it quite clear, on numerous occasions, what I meant when I employed the use of the word 'inflation'. To reiterate, inflation has a non-economic definition synonymous with 'expansion', 'augmentation', and so on. It is incontrovertible that the level of technology held by individuals and alliances has expanded - or, inflated - in size over the years, and will continue to do so. For example, there were not any 24k technology nations in 2007, yet one (almost two) exists today. You are doing nothing but spreading fraudalent claims, in the hope of persuading people into the idea that Pacifica has never enforced terms that were as severe and castrating as what they faced in the Karma War. You are spurred on entirely by the hope of gaining political ground against your perceived opponents. Nothing more.

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946']
Your insults are very cute. Who is Alterego, and what does he have to do with reps?[/quote]
Who is Letum, and what does he and Pacifca's reparations have to do with the Bipolar peace settlement? [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/iiam.gif[/img]



[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1270465556' post='2248946']
Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say get over.

I mean that you should stop using your personal feelings to exhibit wanton aggression towards other parties. And yes, you have been aggressive throughout this conversation, making malicious accusations such as:

"[i]Pacifica is working assiduously to be seen as the poor victim of a world that is out to get them, but there's a time and a place for your tired propaganda[/i]", "[i]the underhanded and manipulative actions of Pacifica[/i]" and "[i]a concerted misinformation campaign by you and your ilk[/i]".

That is the kind of behaviour that you must get over if you have any semblance of maturity. I am attempting to engage your claims of relative inflation in a reasoned manner, and you respond with aggressive statements and accusations, which effectively border on Ad hominem attacks. Your demeanour is not how honest debate is conducted. I am not quite sure if it my tag that triggered your acidic tongue or if you generally exhibit such behaviour, but you please pay careful attention to this:

Get over yourself. Stop taking so much time trying to discredit my argument by calling into question my motivation or character, and spend more time trying to actually argue economics. This is not some partisan election campaign, so there is no need for such tactics.
[/quote]
Again, it's always interesting to see your swift transition from forceful debate to, "you sad mean things to me and I am sad". Let's try this on.

Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say move on.

I mean that you should stop attempting to soothe your damaged ego by dispering amongst the international arena a carefully-constructed ploy to come across as a maltreated alliance that undeservedly felt the wrath of alliances defending themselves and their allies. You should stop acting as if a spirited debate and some forceful language - despite your use of it, also - damages your delicate sensibilities.

That is the kind of behaviour you must get over if you have any semblance of maturity. I am attempting to engage your claims of taking the stance of "the reparations with the most digits are obviously the most damaging" in a reasoned manner, and you respond with strawmen (your repeated discussion of economic inflation which was never utilised in my argument, as I have explained) and accusations, which effectively border on ad hominem attacks. Your demeanour is not how honest debate is conducted. I am not quite sure if it was my tag and subsequent desire to immediately throw baseless accusations my way that triggered your intellectually fraudulent responses, in lieu of anything sensible, or if you generally exhibit such behaviour, but please pay careful attention to this:

Get over yourself. Stop taking so much time trying to discredit my argument by calling into question my movitvation, or designing strawmen and attacking them with the ferocity of an Invicta blitz, and pay attention to the realities of history and the fact that there are factors that come into play that undermine your 'economics' arguments. This is not some partisan election campaign, so there is no need for such tactics.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Denial

[King Louis the II]

It is a great pleasure to see this. Congrats for our friends in C&G, SF and NOIR. Asgaard you guys are really cool!

Thank for my adversaries from TOP, IRON, TOOL and Legion. You guys fought well and with honor.

My special thanks for President Obama from TOP and Prideassassin from Iron. I enjoyed our fight and our cordial messages.

I wish the best rebuild for all nations in all sides.

[Wargarden]

War was cake. Those negotiations looked like walking through hell. Congrats to all and a special big ups to the negotiators (especially Sir William.)

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1270471021' post='2249006']
And with this, we have finally drawn your underlying motivation out into the open. As I had suspected earlier, you are motivated only by the pursuit of excusing Pacifican crimes of the past, with your posts amounting to nothing other than factually inacurracte criticisms of Complaints & Grievances, coupled with a dash of the Pacifican victim complex. You see, this statement goes to the heart of what we are discussing here. As the total technology held by individuals and alliances have increased over time, so have the absolute number in reparations extracted at the conclusion of conflicts. This is a process that is not limited to the Hegemony, the Karma War, or the Bipolar War; rather, it is something that has transcended all politics and continued unabated. This is why the only valid, honest method of making a comparison between the severity of peace agreements is not Letum's "gee, let's see which one has more digits" but to investigate the proportion of technology that had to be transferred, in combination with the burden it put on that alliance.
[/quote]

This paragraph does nothing more than make further attempts at discrediting my argument not by attacking the argument, but the motivation behind it. It is therefore circumstantial ad hominem, and I have no need to comment on it further, as it does not prove anything relating to the economic argument in question.

[quote]
So, because it is not quantifiable, it is not relevant? Also, there are factors that are quite clearly more detrimental to an alliance than others - for example, the disparity in psychological consequence between an alliance having to transfer 90% of its technology and being subject to a few nasty comments in the public arena. You are being intentionally obtuse.
[/quote]

Psychological factors do have an effect yes. They cannot be used as a magical formula to handwave away a large number of reps by claiming that one of them "hurt" you more than the other. Any psychological burden of a high percentage could arguably be counter-acted by psychological burdens of a long time under reps and a long time in war. I have noticed that you don't seem to argue in favour of the latter two. In the same manner, I can find many tiny little things that I can attribute a "psychological burden" to. Since it is not clear nor provable, there isn't really much of a point to be made other than "there is some effect".


[quote]
As you have brought up - both in the description of your own reparations payments and this hypothetical situation - the method of firstly using surplus, remaining technology at the conclusion of a war, and then supplementing that, if necessary with self-bought technology, I will ask you this. Would you rather be in:

A) A TOP that possesses 50k technology and must pay 100k direct technology,
B) A TOP that possesses 444k technology and must pay 100k direct technology,
C) A TOP that possesses 800k technology and must pay 100k direct technology.

Since you employ the method of firstly using on-hand technology to make reparations payments, there appears to be a clear winner out of the above.
[/quote]

The question here is not phrased properly. The alliance that has 800k tech is in a better absolute position than the one that has 50k tech, and will continue to be as such after reps, so it is natural someone would "rather" be in that position. The misleading phrasing of your analogy misses my key point: [i]how well off someone is has no effect on their ability to produce tech, nor its cost.[/i] Similarly, the "tech surplus" has no effect if exhausted, as the end result is simply moving from one resource to another, which for the nations in question and with the slot constraints we work with is effectively inexhaustible.


[quote]
I have made it quite clear, on numerous occasions, what I meant when I employed the use of the word 'inflation'. To reiterate, inflation has a non-economic definition synonymous with 'expansion', 'augmentation', and so on. It is incontrovertible that the level of technology held by individuals and alliances has expanded - or, inflated - in size over the years, and will continue to do so. For example, there were not any 24k technology nations in 2007, yet one (almost two) exists today. You are doing nothing but spreading fraudalent claims, in the hope of persuading people into the idea that Pacifica has never enforced terms that were as severe and castrating as what they faced in the Karma War. You are spurred on entirely by the hope of gaining political ground against your perceived opponents. Nothing more.
[/quote]

Another case of you talking about my motivations rather than my argument. Fallacious political rhetoric.


[quote]
Who is Letum, and what does he and Pacifca's reparations have to do with the Bipolar peace settlement? [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/iiam.gif[/img]
[/quote]

1) You are talking to me, so you know who I am.
2) I don't know. I made a two-sentence reference, and you have been writing paragraphs about it ever since. You tell me.



[quote]
Again, it's always interesting to see your swift transition from forceful debate to, "you sad mean things to me and I am sad". Let's try this on.

Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say move on.

I mean that you should stop attempting to soothe your damaged ego by dispering amongst the international arena a carefully-constructed ploy to come across as a maltreated alliance that undeservedly felt the wrath of alliances defending themselves and their allies. You should stop acting as if a spirited debate and some forceful language - despite your use of it, also - damages your delicate sensibilities.

That is the kind of behaviour you must get over if you have any semblance of maturity. I am attempting to engage your claims of taking the stance of "the reparations with the most digits are obviously the most damaging" in a reasoned manner, and you respond with strawmen (your repeated discussion of economic inflation which was never utilised in my argument, as I have explained) and accusations, which effectively border on ad hominem attacks. Your demeanour is not how honest debate is conducted. I am not quite sure if it was my tag and subsequent desire to immediately throw baseless accusations my way that triggered your intellectually fraudulent responses, in lieu of anything sensible, or if you generally exhibit such behaviour, but please pay careful attention to this:

Get over yourself. Stop taking so much time trying to discredit my argument by calling into question my movitvation, or designing strawmen and attacking them with the ferocity of an Invicta blitz, and pay attention to the realities of history and the fact that there are factors that come into play that undermine your 'economics' arguments. This is not some partisan election campaign, so there is no need for such tactics.
[/quote]

I am proud that you judge me worthy of imitation. Perhaps I should have a teaching position in this school of yours. Naturally, this doesn't say anything about the economic argument in question, so there's nothing to talk about.


I'll repeat myself, since this seems hard for you to do: stop attacking my motivation, and focus on the argument.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Letum

[harmoxe]

o/ Peace.

I'm glad to go back to hugging what's left of my infra.

To all those I fought: a salute; `Well done, gentlemen'.

[Charles the Great]

good to see a peace agreement reached

o/ ORANGE

[BraveNewWorld]

Reps for Sparta? Wow, the easter bunny certainly was generous.

[Ogden Chichester]

Peace at last! And what a great day for it too.

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1270472382' post='2249016']
The alliance that has 800k tech is in a better absolute position than the one that has 50k tech, and will continue to be as such after reps, so it is natural someone would "rather" be in that position.
[/quote]
Thanks. I'm glad we agree

[Bob Janova]

Denial, as usual you are expending many words and leafing through the thesaurus to try to bury a bad argument in mountains of verbiage. The bad argument in this case is that 'inflation' somehow justifies much higher tech reps than in the past.

The first issue with that Letum has already brought up: once you have a minimum size and amount of tech, it doesn't make any difference how much you have. In the three scenarios in your last post, only the first is different, because paying out more tech than you have requires you to buy more and send that off as well. The size of reps which is practical for an alliance where there is enough tech to go around is bound by member count, not total technology. And as was consistently argued by MK during the arguments about proportionality relating to the Karma War, 85,000 tech is a lot for an alliance of that size. For example, here's Azaghul in his [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=58638]long spiel[/url] about how the NPO reps were justified while the noCB reps were not:
[quote]MK was faced with reps that were [b]very heavy for what was then about a 190 man alliance[/b] to pay for the "crime" of defending allies from a totally bankrupt attack on those allies.[/quote]
(emphasis mine)

Using this idea of membership size and proportionality, to demand over 250k from TOP is much worse than 350k from NPO, and much worse than 85k from MK in noCB too.

And the second issue is simply that there has not been much inflation in the top tier since noCB. In February 2009, TOP had 10 million NS and 600k tech. The then no. 1 alliance (NPO) had 21 million NS and almost a million tech. Today's TOP has deflated by around a third and today's no. 1 is only 11 million with 600k tech, a 40% or greater deflation of NS and tech. [b]CN has deflated considerably in the last year[/b] and therefore it is disingenous to use 'inflation' as a reason to levy increasingly large reps.

C&G has now taken far more in reps than everyone else in history, and it looks increasingly like the Karma talk of 'proportionality' was simply a smokescreen.

With all that out of the way, congratulations on peace. I believe these reparation amounts can't be justified by past precedent (as I said much earlier in this front, an objective analysis of various precedents gave a figure around 100k tech as the 'fair' mark). But it is good to see C&G finally give peace (and yes, I know the last week or so was not held up by you, but the previous six were) and that there are no oppressive terms beyond the size of the reps demanded.

And I hope Grämlins are forcefully shown the error of their ways. It is not a good thing to leave a comrade out on the battlefield but Grämlins crossed the line into abusing C&G's strength for their own twisted ambition, and I know that C&G made a real effort to bring them back into the fold, so you can't be faulted for that.

[el coggins]

glad to see this war has ended after a long run of fighting.

well done to all combatants you have fought well on every side, apart from the trolls as we know they are the greatest super evil

Edited April 5, 2010 by el coggins

[abdur]

o/ Peace

Great fight guys.

[Brutilius]

O/ Peace

Congrats to everyone who fought, TOP you were good fighters, you have earnt my respect over the course of this war.

[Letum]

[quote name='Denial' date='05 April 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1270473240' post='2249026']
Thanks. I'm glad we agree
[/quote]

I am glad you have abandoned your attacks and seen that I am right after all

[Alterego]

[quote name='fallin' date='05 April 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1270468374' post='2248980']
Its called being caught between a rock and a hard place.

One might imagine the accusations that MHA left Gramlins out to dry and calling us a "survivalist" alliance if we chose any other course of action.I hope you can see our predicament here. Inevitably, there will be people that will be criticizing that we did too much. There will also be people who would argue that we didn't go all the way for our treaty partners.

It's a dilemma we're not fond of being shoved into.
[/quote]

Im sure you will try to rewrite this chapter just as you have rewritten other parts of your history when you just couldnt do anything as your allies crushed alliances out of existance. If you dont like being in this position do something about it!

[quote name='nutkase' date='05 April 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1270468565' post='2248983']
I see it being numerously impossible for IRON to be destroyed by Gramlins. Also Gramlins are not seeking disbandment, so stop making accusations. From my information we have not threatened anyone in any shape or form also. Please provide evidence that we have talked to any alliance and threatened war upon them if they came to the aid of IRON, in a war that IRON was in no doubt a aggressor.

Also the fact remains, If a alliance breaks terms the common reaction to it is war. Stop dodging the obvious.
[/quote]
The e-lawyer is strong in this one. Alliance killing is bad but legal, helping the aforementioned alliance is good but illegal and MHA will happily crush anyone who stops Gramlins finishing their job destroying IRON.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Alterego

[Omas Nams]

Congratulations to all those involved.

[Denial]

[quote name='Letum' date='05 April 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1270473707' post='2249033']
I am glad you have abandoned your attacks and seen that I am right after all
[/quote]
I expect to see you in the front row of Denial's School for Gifted Rulers shortly [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng101.gif[/img]


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1270473460' post='2249028']
Denial, as usual you are expending many words and leafing through the thesaurus to try to bury a bad argument in mountains of verbiage. The bad argument in this case is that 'inflation' somehow justifies much higher tech reps than in the past.[/quote]
Okay, okay, I get it. You have vocabulary envy. Can we get past this and you can stop using this same line as a preface to every post you direct towards me? Also, I'll reiterate, for the fourth time, when I used the word inflation, I did not mean 'an increase in price' but used it as a synonym for 'expansion' or 'augmentation'. You, like Letum, have chosen to be purposely ignorant of this fact and consistently created strawmen.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='05 April 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1270473460' post='2249028']
Using this idea of membership size and proportionality, to demand over 250k from TOP is much worse than 350k from NPO, and much worse than 85k from MK in noCB too.

...

C&G has now taken far more in reps than everyone else in history, and it looks increasingly like the Karma talk of 'proportionality' was simply a smokescreen.[/quote]
As per usual, your argument falls apart quite rapidly. I'll say this to you using words that I have seen used in your own posts, so it's easier for you to comprehend (and it will save you time from not having to include your normal preface in your reply!): If you read on through Azaghul's writing, and through my posts, the idea of proportionality in determining reparations from aggressive alliances does not only take into account the number of members, but the amount of technology remaining at the conclusion of the war. Just a mere two sentences after the Azaghul quote you provided, he states "Athens had to send off 7/8ths of its tech..." I assume you intentionally discarded that part from your 'analysis'. I would recommend reading the entirety of Azaghul's post there, Bob Janova, as I am sure you would find it enlightening. Additionally, your accusation that proportionality was a "smokescreen" in Karma is entirely baseless. The exact same notions that were applied throughout Karma War were applied throughout the Bipolar War, including this peace settlement. Not to mention that it is laughable to claim that there is any similarity between Mushroom Kingdom paying reparations for defending its allies, and TOP paying reparations for aggressively attacking an entire bloc. By very definition, sizeable reparations were necessary in this peace settlement, and TOP leadership admitted as such.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Denial

[Letum]

The absolute amount of reparations is, with certain economic pre-conditions that are almost universally met, an accurate method of comparing the harshness of reparations for similar alliances.

This is because, for an alliance that has developed economically beyond a minimum level, there is an absolutely flat cost of tech production, which remains the same whether they have accumulated a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand or a million technology.

Therefore, an alliance of static size would take twice the time, effort and cost to produce 200k tech as it would 100k tech. This would hold true even if it held 400k in the first instance, and 200k in the second; making both instances equal to a production of 50% of its total technology.

The only pre-conditions that need to be met for this to hold true is that the alliance produces enough money to fund such a production of technology, and the majority of alliances are at such an economic level.

Now, on the surface, it might appear that a nation that has tech would be able to give it away for free compared to a nation that has none, and would therefore have to buy some. This would ignore both the cost of acquisition of said tech and the cost of replacement, which would still factor into play, regardless of overall level.

A further argument might be that a nation that has no tech would be able to replace a part of its own technology via self-buying cheaper than a larger nation would be able to replace via tech deals. This too, ignores several crucial factors. The most important is that reparations are not supposed to be a profitable endeavour; therefore the calculation of any profit that is payable via tech deals (or in the converse, lost in an artificially lowered price) cannot be factored into any calculation of “harshness”. What matters is the toil required to give out the reparations in question. Therefore, the actual (rather than market) replacement cost would be the same. If the tech-deals are intra-alliance, then this would automatically be retained regardless of price. If however external tech deals are used, then the alliance in question is in effect paying a price for “borrowing” external productive capacity in order to save on it's own slot usage in the rebuilding period. Since this is a concious economic transaction made under the belief that a material benefit is conferred, it cannot be judged as an extra cost. It would make no sense to regard it as harsher than domestic production, since it is a prefred measure with economic benefits.

Now, it is certain that, in the example given above, the nation that started with 400k tech and ended with 200k would be in a better material position than one ending up with 100k, despite facing a heftier burden. However, the ending material position has no effect on the severity of a reparations agreement. Under that logic, a nation that had 100 million citizens and lost 99 million would end up at the same level as a nation that had 1.5 million and lost 500k – but quite clearly, the suffering imposed is nowhere near the same.

So, what factors would change the severity of a specific reparations option? Well, the main one would be the productive ability, which is mainly contingent on the number of nations available (either through total alliance size or through what is allowed from term restrictions). Other than that, a basic nation-economic level (which most established alliances have) and a basic logistic competence (which again, most established alliances have) is necessary.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Letum

[ChairmanHal]

A few points...

1. Congrats to those of Valhalla's friends in this conflict that are achieving peace.

2. IRON, DAWN, good luck in your continuing conflict with Gramlins. I suspect it won't be long now, either because Gramlins takes the hint...or Darwin reaps his reward.

3. Specifically to those alliances and individual nations foregoing "ma reps" (the rather large amount of tech reparations in this case) and/or those accepting items such as reviews in lieu of "ma reps", a special note of congratulations--victory is truly its own reward and you should be commended for recognizing that. Ultimately, whether the reparations given are "fair" or not will be for history to determine, but they do nothing to contribute to a lasting peace of any sort.