Taken overall, everything youve outlined seems pretty reasonable.
As an unbeliever, though, I do see three areas of concern.
First:
What do you mean by private?
If you mean forums that anybody can read, but only mods are allowed to post, Id support that fully. On a site with as many members as this, the mods need a place to discuss administrative business without being drowned out by members posts.
If you mean forums that are accessible only to mods that raises a red flag. Secrecy encourages cliquish behavior, as well as arbitrary and uneven enforcement of the rules.
First, we have a reconciliaiton team, who have access, and could address such issues if they arise. Many are previous conciliators, and as such are pretty sensitive to such matters. We may have yet another solution as well, but its pretty early yet.
What constitutes mockery, and where is the line drawn between honest debate and mockery? Is asking for credible evidence of God or certain beliefs about God considered mockery? Is questioning aspects of the testimony of a believer mockery? Is poking holes in the assertions of Creationists mockery?
This is actually a member driven rule, taken from the wiki. It is likely the discussion in the rules wiki addresses this. If not, the authors could certainly feel free to chime in here. As I see it, is there is significant leeway in interpretation. Ie, it provides for significant leeway as concerns an apologetics debate, while at the same time, staff can use it in a congregational area to reign things in if need be. With the new rules, staff have substantial discretion, but they also have much greater oversight than in the past.
This one just seems weird to me. Ive been here for a couple of years, and I cant recall (granted, I do spend most of my time here in the C&E and GA sections, so I may have missed something) anyone ever claiming to worship the Christian Satan.
Again, this is from the wiki... (in fact, many of the new rules are either copies of, or derivations from the wiki rules). Members did a great job of putting them together. When we we rewrote them, the intent was to widen the scope, increase the latitude of interpretation, soften the language, and potentially reduce the legalese aspect of them.
Will atheism be considered Satanic?
No*
The accepted conclusions of mainstream biology and/or geology?
No*
The beliefs of non-Christian theists?
No*
Or even non-Nicene Christian denominations?
No*
* as a general rule, the topics you bring up seem nearly impossible to combine with the promotion of the rituals or practices of Satanism. On the other hand, I have seen nearly impossible beliefs on CF over the years, so I can't say it won't happen, but it would be rare.
Certainly, the reconciliation staff would take a very close look if the rule was used in that way. It is more likely another rule would apply rather than this one. Ie attributing Satanic rituals to one of those topical areas would likely be seen as pretty inflammatory, rather than a case of active promotion.
this senility really...is hard on a gal 
