Everyone should be clear on the 33% rule. And I think it should be defined as a rounded number, so let's round down. Let's call it six hours. If you are at war and move within six hours of the NEXT TURN'S timer you have broken the rule. That we all agree on.
If you break this rule the first time you should just lose 25% of your total votes up to that point.
If you break it the second time you again lose 25% of your total votes (this does not include lost votes) and five tech vouchers.
This is just for any violation of the rule so far.
If you do it in an overt and gross fashion (like you attack multiple units, pillage multiple squares, etc.) you will be punished more harshly; 25% of your total votes and you lose ten vouchers. This penalty will be determined by THREE people. One of your allies, one of your enemy's allies and a third, TRULY non-aligned player. This way you have one side (ostensibly) making arguments FOR you and then one side making arguments AGAINST you while one would serve as the neutral who would, in theory, break the tie. Although all three players can vote however they'd like and their decision should remain anonymous.
If you do it three times I think you should be in consideration to be booted, because clearly you don't respect the other players.
There should be exemptions; if you HAD to move you should be exempt (and we've gone over this before so everyone should know what I mean), if you did it on accident and it is clear through your actions that you did it on accident (you only get to use this once), and then any other possible exemption I haven't come up with. Who will decide this? The same three people who would decide if it was a gross and overt violation.
Basically say the Aztecs attacked the Zulus at the 4:15 hour point, (within the six hour limit). If the Zulus think they were attacked too harshly and want to "file" for the extra punishment they should say so in the organization thread and then three people are chosen. We'll let the Zulus pick one, the Aztecs pick another, and then the third neutral party is chosen by the rest of the group (but must actually be neutral). If the Aztecs say "I had to move/It was an accident" the same thing occurs, a group of three is picked in the same way to determine if this happened. Unless of course the Zulu player decides that they believe the Aztecs player.
This way those that think that we shouldnt' punish accidentally rule-breakers get a safety net, the penalties are less harsh than what I suggested before AND there is still oversight on certain situations. I think this is a fair compramise.