That's a pretty good starting point Joshua =)
There are slight differences to rules of engagement around contentious discussions, namely the issue of personal attacks. Pretty easy to enforce personal attacks outside of those discussions as it's a lot clearer what is and isn't. Quite a few more shades of grey in current events, as we recently witnessed (and given that you had a hand in explaining some of that nuanced distinction recently, it's pretty clear there's room for it).
Specifically, your fourth point leaves a lot of room for subjective interpretation by moderators. In the interest of consistency and transparency, I'd prefer to take more of the discretion of the moderation staff out of the equation.
The point of the final point is to leave moderator discretion as a factor for them to explain as they see fit. This isn't The Law. Moderation is a people's job, and the current situation is in part the result of two people in particular trying to use the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. By emphasizing that the list is non-exhaustive, you avoid this. And this doesn't have to be set in stone either: The lovelyness of a bullet point list is that you can just add things you like or don't like that keep propping u0p (in fact, I did just that just now).
And I generally do have enough faith in the moderation staff to put trust in their discretion. You and Kara made some decent points about how the current situation was actually going quite well aside from, well, Goober. In general, mods have been excellent at explaining their reasoning for intervention.
There's obviously a question about making a rule list for staff conduct, but I'd think that's mostly just down to following a certain procedure. Am not going to tell you how to do your jobs. If you can explain your reasoning to eachother as well as you've done that to us, you ought to be fine.
