Okay, I've been thinking about it for about, oh, say, the last ten minutes, and I have a more rigorous proposal to make on how this will be managed.
10 day phases (hear me out)
The first two days will be for diplomacy and making deals, determining what moves you'd like to make. At the end of those two days, you need to have submitted for formal review a set of moves. For examples:
F Lon-ENG
F Edi-NTH
A Yor-Wal
There will then be UP TO five days for line-item discussion of any possibly controversial moves. Players are encouraged to submit a brief (or lengthy) explanation of any potentially contrary movement when they submit orders to possibly save time. When players determine that both sides have sufficiently made their case and neither is yielding (or at the end of day seven, so three days left on the clock), then the judge (eighth player - not Thucy) will look at both sides and rule one way or the other.
The last three days are for the judge to consider any cases that have taken up all five days discussion days and for players to scrabble to find a move that they can make in place of any movement that was denied.
Critiques? Suggestions? I'd like to find the best possible rules to play under for this idea before we start and fill in every possible loophole so that the game can go smoothly. Constructive criticisms welcome.
A few final notes before I post this reply.
1) If there is no need to call the judge, s/he won't be called.
1b) If there's no need for discussion, phases can process sooner (since the end-of- day-two order submission is essentially a "readying" action anyway and won't change unless an order is denied).
1c) Players are expected to be honorable and make moves that make sense and /not/ base their moves, as much as possible, on other orders already submitted for consideration. (But it's PP, so, you know, it'll happen, but try not to let it.)
2) Ad Hominem attacks are extremely discouraged.
3) Instead of allowing a move change in the final three days, it could be that any move the judge rules against is just changed to a "hold," so that you have consequences for trying to go against your philosophy. This is an idea as an alternative to what I said above.
4) You're expected to run the country like the philosopher/philosophy you submit to, not talk like them. Just to be clear. Your ideology and actions must coincide, but your words not necessarily.
5) If you want to play this variant, please use common sense and don't try to ruin everyone else's fun just because you can. Again, you're not trying to be the philosophy, just order your troops like your philosophy. See #4.
TL;DR
Two day phases with readies expected ASAP unless an order is called into question. If an order is called into question, up to 5 days of debate, with a final 3 days on the clock to give the judge (8th player) time to review moves and rule one way or the other based on the arguments offered on both sides. Some clarifications or alternatives presented in the numbered notes above.
An actual philosophy variant
, 50hr phases, WTA, orders must be announced. If someone can demonstrate how a proposed action goes against your philosophy, you may not take that action and must do something else. Critiques?
)
)
)
)
)