I feel both your arguments are quite similar... it is just a matter of where to draw the line. I once convinced a baron to kick a number of inactives, banned accounts and players from a rank one tribe in world 6 so that the tribe who had held number one for a long time would lose it, and hopefully have a big blow to morale. It was then blamed on that player being hacked. Many I am sure would say that was below the line. From my view, they had lied many times, had been arrogant and were my main enemies on that world. The plan worked and a free fall happened in that tribe leading to their destruction... I also once (in the same war), and the sister tribe of that tribe I just mentioned oversaw a spy I had, using three or four sat accounts in my enemies ally tribe to spread rumours to the tribe he was in about them planning war. Rumours circulated till they were both so expecting of war, war happened, and the tribe I was enemies with faced too many wars and collapsed. Many would call that underhanded, I would call them inadequate of imaginative diplomacy. It is where you draw the line, where I draw it is at a definite no of breaking rules, hacking, paying PP or mixing worlds are all against the rules, I stand for all of those. So I guess that puts me on parmenions side of the track.
Morals are covered by the rules really, and those that are not are often punished in kind from experience It becomes a great excuse for wars by others once the truth is revealed on a wide stage.
Woot-N and Woot-S ?