I personally don't have a problem with fighters and netters going head to head persay.

My issue has always been (and I've been saying it on AT for a few years now) with wars that break out for no good reason.

LaF still very much approaches this game the same way we did way back when it all first started.

Tags were formed so that individuals could gain tag protection and do better than they could do on their own through group cooperation. Thus there is a lot more of an individual player/country element to it than a lot of people like to recognize these days.

The largest element of this was protecting member countries from being abused by other people/tags (aka establishing tag protection).

War came about as a function of these interests: When a tag needed to war another in order to maintain their tags integratity, or defend their members from the abuse of others. As such wars happened for a reason and served a purpose: To protect your tags members and its interests.

I understand perfectly that some people perfer the war element of the game and want to persue it, and that is fine. But does that mean that the purpose of war inherently changes? Every alliance has its own propensity to war over issues, and has a threashold of how far they need to be pushed before decided that war is the best option to protect their member's interests (associated with the marginal gain percieved with warring over the marginal cost).

But warring just for the sake of it flies in the face of why war, and the entire system exists to begin with, does it not?

I guess what I'm really saying is that people need to start being a little more competitive around this game, try to build the best countries they can, and in the process of doing so land issues will arise, negotiations will break down, and wars will happen. These wars will happen DUE to something, and I can say with confidence that I, and most other netters, wouldn't have anything negative to say about these occurances.