EVE business as usual. CCP markets big battles and they wouldn't get big battles if they allowed smallholders to mess with their plans that only big corporations are allowed to play EVE.

This is not a sandbox. This is CCP's game and you must bloody play it the way CCP tells you or else.

Optimist? :D

As long as the costs across the board end up in the 100M low-end and 1B ISK upper-end (for the really big corps or disparate sizes), I'll be content.

I feel that if you want to wage war in hi-sec, you should be prepared to pony up some ISK for it and the 3M/50M existing fees are simply too cheap. Raising that to at least 100-200M means that there's a minimum buy-in and you're not just going to wardec for the lulz. With that kind of scratch on the table, you're going to go in with a plan on how to hurt your opponents, not just half-arsed saying "well, the fee is only 3M/50M, so we'll throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". A higher buy-in means that your attackers are more likely to show up and fight. If you can't afford 100-200M/wk at the lower end, then you should go with low-cost suicide ganks instead.

On the flip-side, I don't think the fees should go above about 1B ISK unless you are doing multiple outbound decs at the same time. No organization should be able to price itself out of range, and when you get above 1.5-2.0B ISK per week, that's what will happen. Which is why I put forward using the N^1/4 (or quad -root) as a way to still scale the costs, but with diminishing returns as you get more and more members. You could argue that even 1B/wk at the upper end is too much, but it's not hard to come up with 1B ISK in the current economy.

This is based on my core belief that war in hi-sec is an extension of economic warfare. Since there's no territory to be won/lost (other then POS tower anchor points), your goal in a hi-sec war is to either destroy assets (ships, towers) or to deny income (keep mission/incursion runners docked up), or for e-peen / pride / anger / lulz. The first two are thus economic goals so it makes sense that you should have to pony up some money to do so.

Prove it!

While perhaps not a casual forum poster, I do consider myself to be a casual player, and all my characters live in High Sec atm, you do not represent me Dream Five, but as it happens on many issues Alekseyev does. It would be charitable to call your statement that your opinion is the majority view in EVE as conjecture, most would call it bullshit.

I think we should make the war decing parties earn the right to kill , by mining 1 hour for each person they want to kill.after all your forcing people who dont want to fight into situations where they have to fight or quit -illustrating absurdity by being absurd

Did you look at, or thought about kill board ISK difference between corps as base for calculating the price?
It was brought up in this thread few times and I wrote a larger post about how it could be done.

In short:
So that corp with members that have expensive KB (dealt great ISK damage) when attacking corp whose players dont have or have poor KB, must pay much more ISK then other way around
and when corps with similar KB attacking each other they pay normal middle price

This way you protect non PVP players form griefing but they can still be attacked if attacker really wants it.
And you encourage that PVP corps war dec other PVP corps with smaller cost.

i found last place where it was mentioned and my post quoted:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1099743#post1099743

Pretty much disagreed with most of it. Article pushed what appeared to be EVE Uni's awful ideas for wardecs. Gives all the power to big blob entities and is another blow to small gangs and guerrilla warfare.

As the author puts it, apparently CCP doesn't knows how wars are actually used in game.

Avoiding the wars will be harder, unless you have several players. In which case it'll cost too much to dec you.... Soo, basically protecting those who have the numbers to protect themselves.