As I have stated, I believe the Discussion Rules are unnecessary and tend to be used to quash dissent. My preference would be to eliminate them entirely, but I suspect that this option is not going to be considered.
Thus: if the DRs were Discussion Guidelines, they would be largely innocuous. But they are Rules, and Rules with an enforcement mechanism, and enforcement depends on human agents, who are necessarily fallible. The DRs are intended be "objective", but this is clearly not the case. Enforcement of the rules depends on the subjective judgment of human agents.
Rules # 1-3 approach objectivity. There is probably little or no objecton to #1 (On Topic) #2 (Personal Attacks) and #3 (Privacy), although #2 has an element of subjectivity in the interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack. This rule should be clarified to reduce it.
Rules # 4-5 are more problematic and likely to result in more harm than benefit. Their intention is to eliminate or minimize disagreement, but disagreement is necessary in the course of an exchange. Disagreement is a problem only when it violates rule #2 (Personal Attacks.
The stricture requiring long comments should also be eliminated. "Yes" and "No" are perfectly good comments.
Rule # 5 is where the real problems lurk. Again, it is explicitly intended to quash disagreement, as if a reasonable disagreement over the issues is necessarily a Bad Thing. Without involving personal attacks, disagreement is likely to result in consensus.
The prohibition on "venting" is also a problem. As a guideline to posters, the advice not to post in the grip of emotion might be valuable, but these are Rules, not Guidelines, and meant to be enforced. Yet the enforcers are in no position to judge a poster's emotional state. It is a purely subjective judgment and thus directly contrary to the stated intent of the Rule - objectivity.
This is the Rule most susceptible to abuse, and, I believe, the one that has been most abused, the one that has caused a chill to fall over discussion on G2G and driven away many active participants. It is also the Rule that is most often abused against the Honor Code.
It should be eliminated.
Finally, if there are to be Rules, participants must be aware of them. How many posters even know that there are Discussion Rules, let alone what they are?
If there are to be Rules, they must be prominently posted on the opening page of G2G, along with the potential consequences and penalties. Perhaps, like the Honor Code, signing acknowledgement of them should be a prerequisite for membership.