While I don't disagree with any specific detail, it's wise to remember that this is standard progression for any governing/modding/controlling entity in any arena: expanding the specific offenses, constantly defining new ones, making new rules that were only principles before--the expansion of regulation in an attempt to improve the situation. Many times, the new rules are unnecessary, and in the long run, counterproductive.
For example, the "swearing at someone" is clearly part of the "attacking someone" principle. So, no need to make that rule. In fact, making it opens up the situation to hairsplitting from those that love to push the rules and ignore principles. Juvenile and criminal minds love rules and hate principles.
"Disrespecting" is also very vague. One man's disrespect is another's debate. Disrespect would have to be very clear and deliberate to get modded, I hope--which IMO ends up back at "attacking someone" anyway.
The whole "making a confusing statement" is even more vague and subjective and is starting down the road to unmanageable arbitrariness.
It would be better to stick closely to clear but flexible principles rather than "rules." Principles such as (just examples, not a comprehensive list):
Be polite.
Be professional.
Don't do it if you wouldn't do it with your mother in the room.
Don't be evil.
Attack ideas always, behavior sometimes, people never.
One of my favorites, from 20Books: Don't be prescriptive. (This means, don't try to tell people they MUST do something any one way. There are many ways to do things).
