Thank you, by the way
Sorry I forgot to acknowledge it
I've read on quite a few occasions that raiders can be Condemned, but on any of the drafts I see on Condemning some raider nation/region, they seem to be met with an avalanche of opposition and the comments seem to mostly boil down to "we don't give badges to raiders" without much reasoning or arguments as to why (while of course 'reasoning' is something most SC feedback finds itself deficient in, in most cases I concede the drafts don't do themselves any favour).
Condemnations are awarded for playing the IC villain, and raiders are playing the IC villain, so why aren't they Condemned if they do their job well? To be honest, while going through the Condemnations, I did see a few awarded for what seemed to be successful raiding operations, but I also recall reading in quite a few places that the Council is making efforts to repeal raider Condemnations as it doesn't want raiders to have badges. In addition, I see people express absolute and uncompromising opposition to any WA proposal, no matter how well-written, if the author is from a "raider region". The question is: why?
Though I know I've earlier been vehemently censured for calling R/D a waste of time, I admit that it's quite fun to observe from an outsider perspective. It's a game after all, and C/Cs seem to me quite like the aftermath of this game, offering recognition to players who did their job well. So why can't raiders be Condemned for playing the IC villain and doing a good job at that? Is there any reason other than base resentment for them destroying regions?
Compare it to a cricket match, where on the field, everyone is fiercely competitive and trying to win, but after the game, the blokes who get all cranky upon defeat earn the sobriquet of a "bad sport". But much more well-regarded are the blokes who, even after defeat, have grace enough to laugh and say "well played lads" and then go on to have dinner together.
I of course am very much a foolish newbie to this site and there might very well be some additional nuances I'm missing, so I'm asking this question.
