Dark Prince:
Another option to my multiple choice suggestion would be for those voting to specify the numbers for the variations they choose to vote on and then a bell curve analysis to determine the outcome. I don't know the minimum number of votes for such an analysis to be accurate or for multiple choice for that matter.
I'm interested in the input others may have on that.

Dark Prince: your obviously new to gaming. Stalling aka turtling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtling_(gameplay)
is a strategy that has been utilized for years. Read the definition before you criticize a legitimate game style that you are incapable of overcoming. the move amounts are a joke and ridiculous. 30 moves is barely enough time to set up a proper defense especially in small volcano versions. 60 moves in a large version is not close enough either. i was looking more at 80-100-120-150 as a gear for implementing a non-attack.

Nothingness: i apologize for my approach and the wording but it is a fundamental gaming strategy to stall. removing this will ultimately hurt the strategic/ defensive minded players. i will leave the game if such a rule is adopted.

Nothingness:
I think a minimum number of moves with no capture is a good rule to force a draw, if one of the opponents claims for it:
1) it is simple to remember for everyone
2) it helps preventing games to go on years, when only a player is very slow
3) if two skilled and defensive players agree on going on, it does not oblige to end up the game as a draw, if no opponent asks for it.

I think the most important thing here is to help games to go on faster.

Chaos:
Draw:
There are two ways of ending a game in a draw.
The first is by agreement between the opponents in which one player offers a draw and the other player accepts the offer. This can occur at any time during the game.
The other is by request to support under the 50-move rule if the opponent refuses the draw offer.
The 50-move rule (as it's called in chess) applies when X turns or more by each player have transpired since move Y (or X turns by one player and X-1 turns by the player requesting the draw) without a capture.

Move Y is the starting turn from which the X count begins. Regardless of the variation, the Y turn is reset to the latest move a capture by either player is made including resetting it to a turn prior to the initial Y for that variation. A capture is the only way to reset Y. A capture occurs any time a piece is moved to a square occupied by an enemy piece regardless of which piece is removed from the game board and placed in the appropriate capture list.

The draw must be offered when it is your turn and prior to making a move (it must be possible to legally make all moves that turn without moving any piece onto a square occupied by an enemy piece if it's the Xth move but not if beyond that move). If the X count is met or exceeded and no draw offer is made then or after, the opportunity will expire when a piece is captured.

It is annoying to many players to receive multiple draw offers when the threshold "X" moves has not been met.
Do not offer a draw more than once prior to the threshold or there will be a penalty. Any request for support to enforce the 50-move rule when the constraints for the rule have not been met will also invoke the penalty.
The other player will choose between two possible penalties. Either Y will be reset to the move of the inappropriate draw offer or the player making the offer must choose one of his mines to be removed by support.

Dark Prince:
I think the part about multiple draw offers isn't appropriate. Yes it is annoying and yes it is bad manners but this can happen in any game on Brainking and I see no reason why Espionage should be treated differently. BK is no different to playing over the board, you politely decline the first time, do it more firmly the second time and then ignore them. They get the message. If it reaches a point where it is harrassment you can appeal to the arbitor (Fencer here).

Justaminute:
I'm not too concerned about whether the penalty I suggested is included as part of the draw rule. It has been rare that I've been offered a draw that I declined.

I can't agree with the reasoning, however, that a rule shouldn't lead to different treatment than occurs in another game type. On the contrary, differing rules are what sets a game apart from other games.
Penalties do occur in games for various purposes depending on the circumstances. In checkers, for example, there are variations that impose the penalty of removing a checker if an available jump is not taken.
In some timed chess tournaments there are time penalties for false draw claims and other infractions.
The lack of a penalty for an infraction in some game types does not imply that proposing a penalty for that infraction in a particular game is inappropriate.

Dark Prince:
Do you seriously think that such a request has a remote chance of happening given all the requests that get posted on the feature request board?

The checker example is part of the game. The penalty is for failing to notice that you can take a piece.

The penalties you refer to in chess, such as a mobile going off, are because of the disruption to players concentration when they have limited time available. Hardly comparable.

Your suggested amendment is not part of the game, not unique to espionage and while I am no expert, I would think hugely difficult to programme.

Justaminute:
Whether something has a chance of being implemented should not be a bar to its introduction for discussion.
Whatever the reason for the penalty, removing a checker from the board is a penalty that does NOT occur in all checker variations. It doesn't occur in chess or most other games where a player may choose not to make a move to capture an opponent's piece.

The point I was making was not to show an approximate comparison. It does show that penalties exist in other games. You do not have to agree with the penalty I propose or that there should be a penalty.
My suggestions on a draw rule are not part of the game yet it is being discussed by several others. Though the addition of a penalty is not a part of the game, it too could be discussed and either rejected or accepted.
I make no apology for suggesting it.

There has been no suggestion made that the rule would require any kind of program change other than to add the text to the rules. The 50-move chess rule is not programmed. A player who calls a draw in chess based on the 50-move rule sends it to support to call the draw if the opponent declines the draw offer. The same would be the case in Espionage for either the draw or the penalty.

Dark Prince:
Perhaps I misunderstand your point then, I rather assumed removing a mine would need a programme change.

Justaminute:
If it would require a program change, I would agree that the option of removing a mine would not work. I am sure Fencer would answer that if it came to a point that a consensus of players liked that penalty addition. If the consensus were against it, it would be a moot point.

Nothingness:
I would say the wins I have against you and others here playing Espionage and my very high win percentage in Sabotage variations at IYT adequately refute your claim that I am inexperienced.

The fact that "turtling" is a well known and widely used strategy does not necessitate that rules do not discourage their use. On the contrary, rules are commonly used as a mechanism to deter such strategies. The following is copied from the site you linked in your message.

"In practice, however, games are often designed to punish turtling through various game mechanics. Consequently, while turtling strategies are usually simple enough for novices to learn and are effective as such, they are easily defeated by experienced players who understand the game's methods to counter turtling."

That being the case, I strongly suggest that a draw rule be used to inhibit the use of turtling.