I have to agree with Morrus at the end of the day here. I do understand the importance of the desire for greater precision and clarity in rules of conduct--I absolutely do. But the problem that inevitably comes up with such an approach is that they leave no room for judgment, and the resulting system will be no less and no less maliciously gameable than a less precise one. The rules-gaming threat will be a different kind ("rules lawyers"), but ultimately not helpful to reducing gaming of rules. In fact, I think it quickly becomes more conducive to abuse.
In my experience, it's always a tough balance to strike: too little precision yields a kind of Wild West that even Reddit doesn't allow; too much precision yields a system in which people with grudges can gin up "infractions" by their Mortal Enemies when the posts in question really were innocent.
My own take on this (it feels so weird to me to be talking about site rules in a public thread devoted to publicly discussing site rules, btw--most forums really won't do this)--my own take on this is that the rules as written are solid. They're pretty clear, anyone who is unclear on them can ask for clarifications, newbies (like me) get a bit of a grace period before the orange and/or red text start showing up, and rulings appeals are always permitted over PM. I think of it this way: I could never reasonably ask for more than this from my DM, could I?
