Skimmed through the post and while I agree with some of these arguments, realistically there's only so much staff can do about this. I really think this plague of determining "proper conflict" has devolved to an issue with player mentality, not a specific ruleset. We've seen combat and conflict rulesets dramatically change over the past few years, but these issues still persist. Why?
At the end of the day, the responsibility of changing and guiding how playerbases approach conflict roleplay falls on the leaders of communities (not necesssarily the NL, but for example, a military leader). If people really care about the issue of CRP vs. PVP, set an example of having a good mentality as the leader of your RP group. If you set an example of CRPing in good faith, and PVPing when needed (or if both parties are down to just pvp), the grunts/noobs that follow you will inevitably adopt the same practice. We often see many people talk about how they've had the greatest CRP duels ever regardless of the outcome, because the two players beforehand set mutual standards for what that conflict would look like. Imagine now, if military/community leaders set that example for the people under them.
At the end of the day: sure, there's still rules to work on (Re: Xarkly's post about mechanical running). But at the same time, there's only so much change in the rules that we can administrate. It falls on RP leaders of militaries and communities who care about these issues to set the example of when it's fair to CRP, and when it's fair to PVP. Only then, we might see some change spread across the server.