I have read them, and they are unfortunately ambiguous.

Yes. This is exceptionally problematic.

Name calling isn't explicitly disallowed, as one as long isn't 'dragging down the discussion on the pyramid'.

Ya but no but ya but no. There is a fuck tonne of dragging down that is not dealt with. Also the two strikes over my head are for name-calling when I intentionally pushed the limits to prove points.

I think if the name calling is rising to the level of harassment, as it has at times in chat, people should be put on timeout as you say. I would like to retain a modicum of decency in the chat as well, I just want the rules and processes to be fair and transparent.

1000000% on fair and transparent. Better: FOTPACH = fair open transparent peaceful accountable consistent honest. There's nothing worse than an admin that stoops to lying.

Clearly a rule against harassment would cover Ed and Jumba's conduct, but I am not sure what rules you could cite against socks and usher. They generally don't harass other users in the chat and maintain civil dialogue. What exactly do you object to that can be objectively quantified?

Bad faith argumentative sealioning timesucks are a problem in that calling out their bullshit feeds the asstrolls and sucks your time. By that point everyone's tuned out and no one cares. However, upon repetition, they build up their unlikable bad faith reputation.

The current system just doesn't work well. As it is, Jumba or anyone else can get the operator status and 'subvert saidit' to use one of your phrases, or just ban whoever they want. It seems like a good idea if we can all agree on some guidelines, but that only works if one of us gets the operator status.

It's not so dire. It only lasts 12 hours. But it is a problem.

Off the top of my head, it seems we need to create a League Of Respectable Gentlemen (and Ladies).

I pick you and you pick me and that's the start. We have a consensus, always. We nominate others agree to include them, by consensus. All of us come up with more nominees to include or not, by consensus, and so on growing. If anyone has a problem including a nominee then that nominee is not included. The rejector(s) can explain why, take the 5th (ending all discussion), or engage in discussion to be turned or not. Careful consideration for inclusion should be taken as getting consensus to eject someone may be more difficult.

This League, or trusted-team, would then collectively come up with some rules and/or guidelines for chat. That would be good for chat and the OP so they can do their job without reservation.

Getting OP is as simple as setting an alarm a minute before the chat resets. If able, drop what you're doing, refresh your tab, and then resume your day. The bitches may complain and cry but I'm not giving a fuck doing something else entirely. Sometimes I peek in. Sometimes I see nothing, I see blather, I see insights, and occasionally I see problems. Squash them, for less than 12 hours. Whatever. It seems that simply having the OP status is enough of a threat to keep them in line after a day or two of heavy hands. Unhinged bitches like usehername will shriek obscenities about loosing <12 hours, proving they're just a twat. If only we could ban some for life.