Valar, Newbs and Rainbows.

I really like how Rill describes the situation.  I would offer a slightly different viewpoint on "Situation B" however.  When warrior A fights warrior B, it is very unlikely that both warriors will have fun (at least in somewhat equal measures).  Even for military players the development and "sandboxing investment" is high, and the the risk and cost of war high.  Only the winner has the majority of fun.  The more equal the match, the more fun the war and the more gratifying the victory.  But because one side will lose and pay the heavier price besides, war even between two warrior-types will rarely if ever be "consenting" on both sides...at least in simplistic terms.

In more complex terms, warriors are constantly at war as they size each other up, perform risk-analysis, monitor ongoing threats, choose friends, train and prepare, and maneuver politically.  By the time troops are launched, an intellectual war has been already played out nearly to its conclusion.  I speak in the context of Illyriad's environment--other places like Tribal Wars know only the zerg rush and completely miss the beautiful complexity of running an organization competitively.

Alternatively, you can have pretend wars fought over titles only with no cause or risk, but removing the risk and the cost of losing also emotionally detaches the participants and renders the exercise academic.  It's also only the last chapter in what should be a much bigger story, without the rest of which proves deeply unsatisfying.

Basically what I'm trying to point out is two things:

a) For warriors fighting warriors, there is no "win-win" situation.  No one is interested in fighting over meaningless titles, but for solidarity, ensuring one's own security, exerting dominance, or sharing camaraderie.  Having no value in fighting without a cause implies the need for real causes and thus conflicts.  For the most part, human nature supplies that, and we can only accept that war is by nature a 0-sum game not for the faint of heart.  Either someone gets "unwanted" attention, or everyone twiddles their thumbs.  We're all seeing right now what happens when military alliances are stuck twiddling their thumbs for too long.

b) Sandboxers want freedom from oppression by warriors, and I see no reason why warriors would have a problem with that unless it be from lack of defeatable peers amongst the warrior class.  Hitting much smaller players is little more than cheap sport.  There is no thrill in victory unless you're the type to thrill in the misfortune of others in and of itself.  There is profiteering, but that is heavily marginalized by Illyriad's game mechanics.  There is also no worthy enemy if tiny threats are not allowed to grow.  (However, allowing a threat to grow at least requires said threat to do a good job of maneuvering quietly and intelligently, lest they exhaust their opponent's patience.  We're all seeing that right now too.)

----

Now as for what is a newbie?  There's a very long and steady learning curve in the game such that I could mark out any arbitrary value.  If I were to pick such a value, I'd say "any player who has not yet been able to settle a second city."  I could argue for even much later points, as much remains at that point to be learned of sovereignty, organization, politics, and warfare.  But I'd rather skip the leading question and jump on the real one: who should not be attacked?  To that I say:
 - Small or younger players (i.e. less than half your size or under 2 months healthy growth) with the exclusion of those who exhibit foul attitudes and offensive behavior and provoke reactions themselves.
 - Any "pacifist" player with a good attitude and decent etiquette.  This refers explicitly to players who are not interested in military interaction or influencing the community/political landscape at all.  If you have an opinion and stand up for it, you should actually stand up for it...not just speak for it.  Committing less of yourself only labels you a hypocrite.

The former because "they are the future" and the latter because they are simply not a part of our (warriors') world and should not be dragged into it unwillingly.  This is a short, simple blanket statement, made thusly to provide maximum simplification on what we'll all agree is a very complex and situationally-fluid issue.  But lets at least cover some related questions:

Who can you attack?  Any "warrior-type" player, for any reason you deem fit.  How well that works for you and whether you succeed depends on your strength, the value of your motivations, and the quality of enemies that you choose (or that choose you).  Hopefully, you'll be paying attention so that you know when you've been chosen, because when you play aggressively, you announce yourself as entering the warrior realm.

Who should you attack?  Any warrior of remotely comparable size who provokes you first and/or otherwise demonstrates enmity.

When do you attack?  That depends on threat urgency/credibility, the desire to cultivate real challenges, the ability/limits in maintaining diplomatic tolerance or excusing ongoing provocations, and if it's even relevant, the progress of political maneuvering for allies or other means of influencing the final outcome.  There's really no right or wrong answer here.  Here's just one more possibility:  when you want to turn a half-hearted enemy who's going nowhere into a full-hearted one who will strive harder to grow, influence others, and present a real challenge.

StJude wrote: ... Simple Question: Why is it wrong to attack newbs? ...

The geometric progression of this game lends itself to a wide spectrum of player capabilities. It's unlikely that a 100 pop could take on a 400 pop city. Likewise for any other "n vs 4n" mismatch, and there are probably 6 or more such 'levels' (where two players within a level would stand a chance against each other). Newbie-bashing is an attack across several levels.

StJude wrote: I figured I would start this here and save the devs the hassle of moving it later on. When you can't clear the wreckage yourself, find a new place to crash. Simple Question: Why is it wrong to attack newbs? Anyone willing to answer that?

Youre welcome sir, but please consider the contribution in its entirety - as excerpts do not convey the full meaning of my post.

Off to bed for me.

Tataa...

All in all Jude, I think the newbies issue comes down to not picking on those trying to get to grips with the game, but to set your ambitions a little higher. Its quite easy for an established player to run off with basic resources from an unprotected city, but its unnecessary and very unkind.

On the other hand, larger accomplished players should not overreact if a smaller player has courage to try and rob him of a few advanced resources. If caught, the player in question could expect some form of retaliation, but nothing even close to a siegecamp or the like.

So ultimately its about doing what serves the game best, meaning creating a culture where "the lowest blow" is frowned upon and showing courage is acknowledged.

If ever this culture was cast in stone and followed by the Illyriad player population our wars would have different character altogether.

My 2c