Shiho Nishizumi

That's assuming Camelot's implicated on all of this. I can't fathom them doing something like this and risking the potential backlash that it'd generate (not to mention the obvious shittyness of doing such a thing from a moral standpoint) over what's effectively chump change of essentially worthless money. I find it more likely that someone's trying to drive a wedge between t$ and IQ by proxy of their protectorates, and they thought that making Camelot the target alliance would've made for a plausible scenario.

Perhaps you need to comprehend what reparations actually entail in this game first.

TKR wouldn't pay anything. The trades are simply undone and each party gets back what they had pre-transaction. Try again.

Except case three would become case two because (there is no point in talking hypotheticals that will not materialize) TKR may not return the resources, and after some time has passed the likelihood of someone going to war over this is close to nil. For reps to happen there needs to be a transaction of the sort. That is the core definition of it. There's none to be had here. In fact, it'd terminate future trades that came to be as a result of a mistake. Stop trying to bend definitions so to try to portray your rivals as of doing something they are not.

It's not a rep term, implicit or otherwise, simply because there's no transfer of wealth to be had, which is the main factor for reparations in this context. The mistakenly posted trades that were taken advantage of aren't (to my knowledge) going to be returned/paid back. TKR (or whoever) not being able to make use of the bot doesn't mean they're paying 'implicit reps' or something of the sort. It simply means that they'd no longer profit from mistakes anymore. And monetary reps are usually not something people are forthcoming in accepting, especially when the side that's making the payments are the ones that got attacked (and such a precedent is a precedent that people try to avoid setting, due to obvious reasons). Plus, as already portrayed here several times, the different members in Coalition A have different motivations for their terms, so reparations would not be suitable for what they want either way (some want to see those pixels burned or torn down, not have them spared in exchange of resources).

Tbh, I think that Pre was being facetious with that offer.

Fraggle is not a participant of this global war, and she posted that as a joke. Check the OP to see the actual participants.

Could you even be bothered to read the OP? There are no reparation demands.

Sort of pointless for it to oblige side A to do so, since it's already on their best interest to cleanse their own deserters.

THE The Fighting Pacifists?

One man AA got looted.

Liberty of action doesn't mean exemption to criticism and backlash. Also, seizing someone's stocks is an excellent way to plummet it's value due to the destroyed trust with the shareholders in particular, and public in general.