Homer wrote:when it becomes non profitable for the attacker i suppose...
say you have a bully, you decide to drop all ships and just cut loose with voodoo of any kind, just as a goal of makeing them leave you alone in the long run.. So you start casting voodoo to waste thier clearing voodoo, just to cost them credits and cards and turns.. you do this for some time.. now the point that the recipiant gets the idea you arnt an easy target and you keep on going just to be attacking, thats when its extended greifing, in my view atleast
the profit here would be the bully leaving you alone, once that is accomplished then any further attacks on the same fellow would be greifing, thatis unless the attacker is somehow profiting like plundering ships or gaining a port or anything like that
This one is a very good and common example. Considering that someone is forced to update its gameplay to hunt down the bully, then you can expect everyone to be more sympathetic for the player who forced to update his gameplay. Which means that there will be understanding when the victim proceeds in non-profit attacks for days or weeks, till he makes his point.
Ultimately though, there can be no warranties. The bully might pause off, allow the victim to rebuild back to the prior case and hit back. That's not a problem if the bully hits back for profit. If however the bully continues this just to prove the point that I can continue pestering you, just because the game allows me to do this, then this is a griefing case.
Profit is the key word.
Here is a good example. You got a player who likes to run with big ships and a lot of fleets. This player however is an active player and spends a large part of its income to protect himself. Either though guild mates or his own activity. He keeps mindbar 24/7 and generally speaking, he is a hard target to take down.
What's the moral so far; This player do spends a lot to ensure his defense.
So, you have one person attacking him day by day. Continuously. Without success. Surely, the defense of this person starts to cost more. What probably is worse though, is the mentality that he is overtargeted, he wins and he is still targeted. That's not an issue though. The real issue goes for those who conducts the attacks.
Why he conducts them? Does he hope to catch him off guard? Does he make any profit? Does he have any chance to make a profit? Or he is simply making the life harder? Difficult answers that most of the time only the inner voice of each player can give. It becomes obvious that a lot of misunderstandings can come out of such cases. Misunderstandings that will be hard to resolve, even by administration.
However, there is hope. The most concrete answer can be given by simulating the event to real life. If you have trouble doing this, you can refer to historical events. This will produce the answer you seek. The answer is Roleplay.
For exampleRoleplay the event, assume the boots of your character. There are many directions. If you dislike how it went, you can always "stage" the defeat of your character. You can even "stage" the death of your character if you want to start a new one. Like Charles Vane did. This is why he won that special, one-time, in-game achievement. As a highlight that there are always solutions that can be found by players. At this particular case, when someone wants to get rid of all past actions and start a new future, without having to start from 0, we expect understanding from every player and full respect to such a decision.