Alex this has been debunked multiple times already. I provided context from TCW government channels showing that Dillon had every intention on getting an IT but he was unaware of the passive defense bonus from cities. Sidd on the other hand did not do any sort of low unit count attacks so that's categorical incorrect. How does raiding a nation help them? Medici is still inactive nothing Dillon and Sidd did would in any way "help" Medici. Dillon switched to one barrack because he didn't want to change his build he was after the beige loot that's the full story. Its completely false to claim they were slot filling. The fact that people who IC don't like TCW and are against this ruling should show you that is wasn't the right call and should be reversed.
There's a massive difference between 2 raids happening in peacetime and an alliance war. We'd have far more important things to worry about than one inactive with a lot of loot when our attention would rightfully be focused on the alliance war. My replies errs on the side of caution, its a sad part about this game that people go out of their way to spin things to get moderator actions against people whom they don't like. IQ and others did that in the previous war and so are Borg and the rest of e404 doing it here. I would not authorise something like this during an alliance war precisely for that reason.
However the two situations aren't even remotely similar, an alliance war is an official declaration against other alliance. The very act of raiding an "allied" nation during an alliance war breaches the "preventing an attack" part. No such war exists between TCW/e404. I find it extremely distasteful that many other alliances have done this same exact thing and not being punished (Mind you they should never be punished for it anyway since its not breaking the rules), yet you liberally apply punishment to us including a blanket nation strike on both TCW members when Sidd didn't do anything which you claimed were rule violations.
Again you are making assumptions about events without all the context and facts. Many times when I've found targets with a lot of loot I've switched my war policy to pirate just before I get the beige. At the end of the day how someone chooses to conduct a raid isn't a concern for moderator action. You apply a framework of rules to a situation and assess if said actions constitute a breach. You made a judgement with next to no context (Sidd getting a strike for instance when he didn't use low unit counts is an example of that) and just applied it uniformly.
Alex you're contradicting your own rules here, you can't claim that they beiged purely to "skirt the rules to claim it as a real war", when this isn't anywhere referenced in said game rules. The rules state clearly that if you are not fighting a war to a victory, then it counts as slot filling, they followed the rules you wrote to a T. You can't then claim "moderator discretion" for a judgement when people have no background information to tell them if they're breaking the rules or if they're in the clear. That is extremely unfair and unwarranted.
Now...Medici is still inactive it provide ZERO benefit for his beige time to be prolonged, the intent was always to loot him this was fine before when others did it but not now for some reason..... Its a strawman to include references to "alliance wars" as a justification these moderator actions when the two cases aren't connected in the slightest, others in this thread and myself have given you information which PROVES their intent was to loot not to prevent wars. Its pretty obvious Dillon and Sidd broke no rules, and this is just punitive enforcement against TCW members.
Apologies for typos or any errors... Just woke up.