A recent post by a supposed old-timer about the shortfalls of the land claim paradigm for Civcraft (referring to the genre in general) leads me to believe that some players still think this is supposed to work like a game in the traditional sense of the word. This genre (of which the current iteration is the best so far, and will hopefully continue for a long time) is not a single competition, between players, between nations, etc. It is a world. The players and groups within that world are free to choose goals for themselves. The conflict arises when these goals conflict with one another. Sometimes they conflict in small ways (I wanted my shop to be 9X9 but if yours is 9X10 you're encroaching in my space) and sometimes in big ways (I want to rule the world, and you should all fall beneath my sword!)

The point is that we are not all vying for the same end result. Any change in paradigm that tries to lay down an artificial framework lessens the possibilities here by its very nature. We should never accept a worldwide system that says that if you do not meet a specific list of qualifications, you're somehow doing it wrong. If you're enjoying yourself, you're doing it right, whatever it may be. If we don't like it, we can always try to pearl you.