This is a little unclear, and could be misunderstood during development or (especially) later, by disgruntled users looking for a defense against moderation. Do you mean, for example, “we won’t use arbitrary attributes to pick and choose”, “we won’t prejudge, no matter how plausible it seems”, “we will use only consistent, open, fair principles to judge whether someone can continue participating”, or “we will literally never restrict participation for any reason”?
The first of those seems like a no-brainer. The second one seems like a good idea, but almost automatic (except, perhaps, for discriminating on English ability); it would be difficult to do anything else without asking for and somehow verifying a lot of information up-front. Neither of these are a significant improvement on SE, with the possible exception of somehow improving on the state of English-only requirements. The third one seems useful and meaningful, although a bit challenging, especially given the value of secret anti-abuse algorithms. The fourth one sounds like you’re ruling out post bans and suspensions for low-quality posts or misbehavior, which I assume is a non-starter.
Or is there some other distinct point on that spectrum that you were intending?