I encourage you to use the term griefing only for the most obvious cases, and I encourage you to not blow a gasket just because you don't know every hypothetical scenario that it encompasses or doesn't.
Attacking a well established term's existance leads you no-where.
Lol. Thats the point though isn't it. It's all a matter of perspective.
For me griefing only applies when there is an imbalance of skill/effort - this is directly due to a specific game mechanic exploit (that prime is fixing.
Anything else. Well thats just people choosing how they want to play. Be that so called suiciding, or "legitimate" war. Both are probably going to get you killed.
Thats just my opinion though. You might think differently. That is where the "obviousness" test falls over though. Popular opinion is only popular, and the majority of people are stupid ;)
So with pang's new fix in place there is no game mechanic being exploited as such, and so any perceived issue over greifing/suiciding or w/e you want to call it can't be "fixed" in game.
I'm labouring the point now so sorry if I sound like a stuck record: If you want people to play nice (that doesn't mean not hitting/warring btw) don't give them the invisibility cloak. That way lies ruin. It should be familiar. We are already in it.
Wars can still happen, so what that people know who runs whats country, it's no big deal if it's the same for everyone. It might have an effect on target selection - skilled generals will now consider who is playing a country in their decision making process.
On the flip side when netting, you can see who you are up against... I honestly think it makes for a better experience all around because it is breaking down walls and opening up communication.
The problem we have is that everyone is so used to the status quo the idea of changing things will be abhorrent to them.