Probably, just as they are being done in workplaces, social groups, hobby groups, organizations. However if the larger group dislikes what the smaller group is doing, if they, for example disagree and think that this is just bullying, they will hopefully come to the defense of that person, or raise the idea that it is more complex. I think you refer to this as a minimob somewhere. Which it certainly could be and for anyone who thinks that the forum social rules are wrong, the liklihood increases that they will think that they will think it is a mob, rather than representatives relaying that behaviors X are disliked by the group. And yes, this can evolve over time. As far as them being vague and undefined, I think they may be more complex than the current list. They will likely allow for more nuance and exceptions. IOW I would guess that the occasional insult would be accepted. Instead of a commandment based list, you would have more of a consequentialist evaluation. Thou shalt not X, replaced by situation based analyses - even if these are often done intuitively.
It may seem like the groups you are in do not use shaming and you do not use shaming or approve of shaming, but in my varied and long life I have not encountered any group that did not punish bad behavior through actions and words which cause shame. These include subtler stuff, like judging but not saying it, being distant and treating other people with warmth. Personally I find that more unpleasant than a blame filled confrontation where issues are aired and I can clearly see what is bothering people about me. Others may have different tastes, but both extremes can and do cause shame.
We can let daddy do everything. Carleas can decide what the infractions are, look at it in a rule based way, ban a couple of people a decade and ignore the commandments. I think this has contributed to low standards of interaction. There is a lot of not really responding to people’s points and other rudenesses that if turned into infractions would put an incredible burden on Carleas, since he would have to go into these discussions and do some analysis. Not fair to him. Demeaning to us to demand/expect a parental role for something we can do ourselves. As it is we have a lot of solipsistic posts made by people who cannot really interact with the ideas of others and really, have no reason to think they need to. Philosophy as expressing opinions. The rephrasing these. I ambiguous could practically be a bot or terribly weak AI, one that questionably passes a Turing test.
It puts a lot of responsibility on members. They probably need to refrain from feeding subtle trolls and the more easy to notice right off kind. They need to demand better responses.
It might not even work. But it is not working now.
I notice that Prismatic is getting precisely this kind of feedback. People have moved from shaming to shunning, formally ending interaction. The problem is, I know it myself, it is easy to get redrawn back in, perhaps before the person moves away. I don’t think any feedback will set Iambiguous in motion to another forum (or change the way he posts.) He seems to content to talk to the ether in a number of his threads. But still, it would be interesting to see what would happen if more people took to shaming, then shunning. Waht would the quality be like in the remaining interactions. Would a kind of forum culture become clearer. Would the loss of frustration dealing with solipsistic posters, lead to a more open dialogue between the others, where people concede points, explore, are honest when they realize they still disagree but the other person made a good point they have no riposte for (yet, perhaps) and so on. My guess is that there would beo some improvement but nothing grand. But hey, we could see and a little improvement would be something.