That said, I don't think it quite covers EVERYTHING; posting a thread with links to kiddie porn would still be permissible under those guidelines. On the other hand, it's permissible under CURRENT (i.e. non-existent) guidelines as well, so RAFO would lose nothing and gain much by adopting the standards you linked. Adding something about not being abusive might be good, but even if Admins just stepped in to say something like "you're repeating an argument proven to be factually incorrect" and locked that part of the thread that would be an improvement (one nice thing about having posted guidelines is that when Admins take action against violations of them they can CITE those guidelines as their specific reason, so charges of "arbitrary power abuse111" become far less tenable if no less rare).

I must reiterate that I can't categorically agree that "the position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence should be accepted as true" because:

1) A reasonable, supported and UNPROVEN position can be false (e.g. Galileo didn't MAKE geocentrism untrue, only demonstrate that it always was),

2) Asserting "reasonableness" as a standard is begging for trouble because it's such a subjective determination and

3) It's unproductively self-referential to make "reasonableness" a metric of "the basic tenets of reason" in the first place.

All that said, I generally support those guidelines as fair, constructive and, most importantly, far superior to current (i.e. non-existent) guidelines.