Originally Posted by Oberon

Are you familiar with the sunk cost fallacy? It's an economic concept that basically says you should make decisions about a current situation based on what you have already invested in the situation. A classic example of the sunk cost fallacy is the "double your bet" strategy in blackjack. The theory is if you double your bet after each lost hand you will eventually come back to even. The problem is it's a terrible strategy because the odds that you run out of money before winning a hand is not zero. The money a blackjack player has given the casino doesn't change his odds of winning the next hand.

Anyway, from what I can tell your entire argument for contract improvements is (paraphrasing) that you've given enough and you want some specific part of what you've given back. That is a text book example of the sunk cost fallacy.

I've seen you accuse other posters of accepting bankruptcy as a "reset". It wasn't a reset, it was just something that happened. It certainly sucked but it has very little or nothing to do with the next contract. Bankruptcy is the lost hand in the anecdote above. You can double your bet or you can play the odds with the hand you are dealt. In the case of the next contract the odds are favorable.