> First of all, I get that CoC come from good intentions. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think that it's more than simply a case of good intentions, there has been work over the last several years to hone in on what makes a CoC work, and how it affects the community overall (I'll be happy to try to find references at some point, but if you don't want to wait I'm sure you can google for stuff- python and gnome come to mind as starting places).

> This is the problem right here. It's so polarising! I'm not a hateful person, but you've just painted me as such for advocating a bit of liberty and temperance.

There's a whole lot to dig into here. I'm sure you're not a hateful person, but a lot of people who don't believe themselves hateful are still hurtful. Many people are so far removed from the situations that others are in that they have no idea how hurtful their language is. Some of those people get very angry and confrontational when someone tries to explain that they are being hurtful. A few of them actually want to be hurtful.

> With language like that you give me no choice but to take the other position.

Actually you always have a choice. You can remain neutral, you can disagree with the implementation but acknowledge the value of inclusiveness and try to offer better solutions from the inside, or you could accept that people who are being frequently affected by harassment may have had reasons for coming up with codes of conduct. To actively advocate against them is a choice you made, and you can't put it on me for using strong language in favor of my position.

> And so I won't be part of such communities. The world isn't black and white, us vs. them. It's full of persons, real people, and simplifying them like that is a mistake.

I'm not reducing the whole of interpersonal interactions to a binary decision, but I am making a statement that strongly favors protecting people from harassment.

> I've said it somewhere else in this thread, but codifying something is inflexible and doesn't allow for any nuance.

Many codes of conduct are written specifically to allow for a level of nuance, and enforcement is almost always nuanced and based on the specifics of the situation.

> Any set of rules will have either loopholes or vagueness.

A code of conduct isn't a set of rules, it's a set of values. Specifically, it's a document that outlines how a community values the safety of those who might be harassed over the freedom of speech of the harassers, and lays out community norms and expectations of behavior.

> Better not to write them down, who knows how people will interpret them (see religious texts, which I'd argue were usually written with good intentions).

I disagree with your analogy. A CoC is a living document that was written and is updated by a community that exists in the present, to address our own contemporary set of problems. In a decade or so you could maybe make that argument about old CoCs that are being treated as rulebooks instead of summaries of values, but I don't think it's relevant to the entire concept.

> I'm in favour of handling things on a case by case basis. So yes, I have a negative view on rules and especially written rules in general.

Again, a CoC is going to be about values more than rules. Even when there is a clear violation of the terms of the CoC the enforcement is going to be handled on a case-by-case basis (or at least subject to an enforcement policy that is separate from a CoC).

> You're example isn't very convincing. The CoC itself is useless, it needs to be enforced by community members. Such enforcement can and should happen without a CoC, e.g. consensus that someone was acting improperly is sufficient.

The CoC wasn't useless, it was a reminder that the community values the safety of people over some types of speech. Pointing it out was a reminder that the people were acting in violation of community norms, and they should stop the conversation. It turned what would have otherwise been an administrative action into a social one.

> BTW, formatting quotes in the way you have completely breaks the reflow on mobile. I bring this up because having the same perspective isn't easy.

Thanks, I rarely use HN on mobile. I'll stick to '>' style quoting from now on.

> Nobody has the whole picture and the benefit of the doubt should always be given.

In general I try to assume people are acting in good faith, especially when there is a violation of the CoC that isn't blatantly hateful. I think, as I said above, more often than not it simply comes from a lack of experience to know why something might be hurtful. That said, there is just a lot of hate and harassment out there online, and if you're a minority person it's all that much worse. As much as I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I think there needs to be places that focus on being a safe harbor against harassment first, and then easing up and giving people the benefit of the doubt can come later. The CoC is great for this, in my opinion, because it sets the expectation up front of what will and won't be tolerated, and then leaves the opportunity for nuanced discussion and enforcement to the community after that.