The proposed rules are meant to serve as a ground from which all of us and in particular the moderators to work. I believe The role of a moderator is fore and most to enforce these set of rules. Its hard enough to swift through such huge amount of data and it gets to a level of impossibility if we don't tell them what to look out for. So just to spell it out:
1. as user while registering and being active I need to know what's okay and what's not
2. as moderator I need to know what to act upon and what to not
3. as user I need to know what to report as breach of rules and not
4. as moderator I need to know if reported breach is actually a breach or not
For all of these actions taking place we need explicit rules and not the subjective opinion of moderators. Or else down the road it will create one mess.
So in that spirit and in the spirit of making things clear and explicit for everyone involved I do believe we should work on proposing to this excellent team on how they should modify the proposed set of rules and then put them in place so we can get moving forward.
As far as the proposed set of rules I find it quite balanced a good one to work from and I don't think we can wish for a more relaxed one with regard to any anticipated commercial messages going to be poured on us. Some very minor comments I have in addition to Brians comment here
1. None JED extensions shouldn't be allowed to create groups
2. In "Repercussions" its already stated "Those who do not follow the rules as stated below may be warned". Therefore I found it redundant/unnecessary/confusing that warning is stated elsewhere or if you choose to state it in once place you should make sure to be consistent and state it everywhere.
3. Why were the last set of rules shoved under a title called "Thumbs". It should get another suitable title as its quite unrelated to "Thumbs". Maybe the author got tired, quite understandable ...
Once again thanks to the team behind and keep it up!