"Reading all of the rules set out by the owner of the online site prevents both incomplete impressions and 'kafkaesque' surprises."

Nope. The kafkaesque rules are a surprise because you are only told about them "privately" once you have infringed them, they are not made public. 

The rules made public are more reasonable, but the part you quoted basically says that despite the posted rules, it in fact can  do what it wants behind the scenes. That is not a fair and transparent system.

"We may not agree with a peer-review system, but that's exactly how it works. If my/your peers don't like my/your comments, they'll claim they aren't civil."

That is not the way it is supposed to work, the guidelines say "civility" should be the criteria, not whether someone agrees with the content. Users who cannot follow those guidelines are the ones breaking the rules.