There are two types of conquering going on here. One, is conquering by force, taking cities and destroying an alliance entirely. We've seen a lot of it this server. Two, is absorbing those players that you would have conquered into your own alliance. We've also seen a lot of this. Each has ups and downs, pros and cons. It's not to say that one is better than the other, but each does have drawbacks.
We can see that True Fear currently has more players, more points, and more cities. However, this is spread across their two alliances. The way I see it, Hug This strategy is preparing them for a smooth transition into the endgame win condition. True Fear strategy is preparing to prevent Hugs from being able to do that, trying to create something that's just too big to fight. Both strategies are valid at this point, as it is neither the beginning of the server when players are scrambling to form teams, nor is it the end of the server where one alliance has to control 40%. We're in the middle ground right now. Can True Fear win doing this? No, they can't. They simply do not have the means.
However, that does not invalidate their strategy, as it is being implemented as a direct response to what Hugs has been doing. (Before anyone from TF try to jump on that and say "Not everything we do is centered around Hugs" Be quiet. Yes it is. Everything you're doing is in preparation for the inevitable war you'll have to fight, and if everything you're doing isn't preparing yourself for that, you're going to lose.)
Now, let's address the "It's fair if it's part of the game" and "Developer intent" and "Acceptable game play". Starting with this quote from Raydium88:
I'd like to think the community that plays the game owes some responsibility too...
I love this way too much. There is no such thing as a perfect system, anywhere you go there will always be ways to abuse the "Rules". Money laundering, Police bribing, and pretty much the entire legal system are examples of this (Any lawyers here wanna back me up on this?) Does that make any of those activities acceptable? I guess that depends where you set your moral compass. I guess that depends if you feel like those even have anything to do with your moral compass.
To settle this once and for all. Of the activities that you're questioning or defending, are these things that you think improve the community as a whole? Or are these things that decay it to it's ultimate destruction? Is this something that adds or takes away?
Now to answer that we can make the argument that it has both pros and cons, which I'll concede as a valid point. But do the pros outweigh the cons? Is this a community we can be proud calling ourselves part of when those practices are considered acceptable? Just something to consider.