I don't really see what the complaints are here, from reading the comments made it all seems like convenient little excuses to justify why the war turned out like it did. I'm sure unless both parties are total idiots they knew that they were offering favourable deals to each other in a way for them to both profit.

Psychosis needed a war to stop being fed on.
Debauchery needed a war for another win.

Psychosis got what they wanted, had nothing to lose from another war loss in terms of honour/ww's and set terms of damage limitation against most of their provs.
Debauchery got what they wanted, a war win, via offering to not excessively damage the other KD in order to get them to agree to war.

I mean if the above isn't a fake war then am not really sure what would be, just no attacks/ops at all? You traded the option of getting into a war which you "couldn't lose" by setting up overly intricate terms to negate the concept of 2 KDs fighting until one feels it can't win.

The above doesn't even include all the full info that Bishop seems to have read, things like offering favourable agreements outside of the game and some mention of an agreement to stop war after 24 hours?

I might not like Debauchery but I can be impartial, from the "evidence" in this thread I'd say action against them is more than deserved, whether they should have lost every win is something else to argue though as there's pro's and con's to it.