The point of my proposal is to have a debate about what is serious. I'm concerned that if we make a hard rule like only misclicking a settler is a serious mistake something else that the majority of us would consider serious will pop up and we'll be screwed.
I trust the people on this forum. While individuals may behave in dishonorable ways from time to time, when a majority decision is made it is generally a just decision. Therefore, I believe it's best to leave situations like this in the player's hands rather than craft a rule which will constrain the use of our reasoning.
I'll admit that the most likely situation that would require a reload is a settlement error, and you've developed a decent ruleset for that situation. I can imagine a few less critical, and less likely situations which I personally would allow a reload on as long as doing so wouldn't greatly impact other teams. For example, accidental deletion of a great person. Until we discuss such a situation we won't know where the majority's opinion lies.
It's also possible that an individual who became disgrunteled would log in and perform a series of unauthorized and self destructive moves before leaving the game in a huff. Mass unit deletions, attacks on allies, mass whipping/drafting. I don't think we'd want to continue with the consequences of such an attack. I don't think such a thing is likely to happen, but it is possible, and thus I'd feel a whole lot safer with a rule that allows us to use our judgement about what a 'serious' case is rather than one which narrowly defines what 'serious' is.
