Dunno how a CoC may've been material to resolving this situation. I mean, say there wasn't a CoC, then couldn't the accused still have written a blog post abou

Dunno how a CoC may've been material to resolving this situation. I mean, say there wasn't a CoC, then couldn't the accused still have written a blog post about how they were kicked out for merely saying that someone else was "wrong"? I think the concern is about a formal system being properly implemented. For example, say that we add a formal control mechanism to a door that wasn't previously automated. This has two advantages: (1) the door's now automatic; (2) we can ensure that the door is completely safe, never accidentally closing on anyone. Awesome, right? But, if the door's automation-logic is faulty, then it's not fully safe. In fact, it can now falsely close on people in situations where it couldn't before. I think that's what people are worried about here: the CoC appears to have enabled a destructive interaction that, absent the CoC, may've not occurred. In real life, we usually save legal battles for the big issues because working out formal rule systems can be so cumbersome. People dread going to court because of what a hassle it is! But I don't think that the legal system is malicious; it just takes a lot of effort to analyze things. Cheaper versions of the legal system could be scary, potentially enabling all sorts of faulty, undesirable behaviors. And that's what I think folks fear in CoC's: a naively implemented formal system running amok. They'd rather have to manually open a door every time than risk an automatic door mistakenly closing on them sometimes.