This particular issue whips my sack more than most.
Voting: if a rule specific an individual should not vote, it should be ignored by moderation. Harrassment should be dealt with through moderation, and vote quality should be dealt with by vote removal. I also would go further and state that even if both debaters ask for a vote to be removed - this shouldn’t be enforced either other than if the vote is deemed insufficient or borderline.
These are important enough issues not to be taken out of the moderators hands.
In terms of other special rules, I see these as no different from standard voter issues:
1.) If a debater makes a clear rule, the voters may award points on this basis - or not as they chose. At the very very worst you may request qvoter to justify why they are not following obvious rules, but I don’t think they should be enforced specifically by moderation - only moderated to the extent they are valid aspects to include in a voting decision.
2.) if a debater violates a rule intentionally, and provides an argument as to why that rule must be followed/ this becomes a primary argument and must be aurveyed by the voter to be sufficient imo. IE: if someone runs a kritik on a non-k debate, if the voter explains why the k should be allowed to stand - this is a primary argument that must be surveyed: voters can’t simply say “a kritik is in violation of the rules” any more.
i don’t thinm any of these are actually outside of what happens already.