If you're really interested in rehashing that: the actual initial Mensa-Vanguard talks broke off at an impasse so there was no reason to believe raids would stop. You may have decided to stop raids internally after the talks broke off and after Mensa nations had started raiding en masse, but it was only after a bunch of nations were beiged and no communication of it was given so there was no reason to believe they would stop. No one externally decided to attempt a diplomatic resolution until the initial week of war was up and the threat of outside intervention by Rose was looming. Given other mass raids have been responded to with recognition of hostilities and weren't perceived as offensive declarations, it's really not as black and white as you put it. If you tell alliances that they are are subject to perma-raids if they don't sign with a top 10 alliance or one of your allies, it's easily perceivable as a de facto state of war.
I'm sure by now your policies have been adjusted for handling those situations, but if we're going to be on this subject, it's best to clarify. People who were in Vanguard don't have the OWF presence nor care to come out en masse against the posting gallery out here to constantly repeat this argument, but this has always been the point of view from the other side of that war. It's not particularly relevant to the current situation aside from Steve mentioning that situation briefly, but it's simply not as clear cut as how you were summarizing it.