You are completely missing Aggie's point, although it is actually a point that many are raising and have been for the past few years.
So we will use Sweet Revenge as the subject of this, as lets be honest everyone else is.
Apart from perhaps two Ages/Eras, Sweet Revenge have been involved in some type of war.
This has been from 1v1 wars, chain vs chain wars.. and then there were the attempts at everyone vs Sweet Revenge wars.
In most of these instances they have either been age-long wars or there have been a "truce" where the leaders from both sides essentially agree that it is getting boring and there are perhaps better targets to go after.
Truces are cool, but they are an agreement that nobody actually won.. So, who wins the war? Nobody??
There are also times when there are a whole load of posts on here bragging that an alliance / chain 's sole goal for the age is to ensure another alliance doesnt win. Yes, you heard it, rather than a set of goals for the alliance and the members, they advertise that all they care about is ensuring another alliance doesnt get #1.
So in these scenarios, are the winners actually winners or are they losers? And did they actually lose because someone didnt win, or does that make them winners? If you are confused, imagine how the rest of us feel when we hear "We won because you didnt"
There needs to be some way of trying to create a win scenario for a war because otherwise one side (or both) get bored.
It could be something like "The first side to lose 65% of their overall value" or "The first to have x% of their chain surrender" or something along similar lines or even different.
Regarding this war, has it been won because most of the value is now in two accounts with very little activity from anyone else, or is it still going because Bravo is raiding people, Cheese is sabbing once or twice per week, and Dank is still fighting (for now) to stay afloat?