This is why I am generally not a supporter of these CoCs based on how I have seen them play out negatively over and over again, and I share the same sentiment a

This is why I am generally not a supporter of these CoCs based on how I have seen them play out negatively over and over again, and I share the same sentiment as others in this thread that have mentioned the same. My understanding based on talking to others who DO like them, is that the rules they put in there are an attempt to show contributors (and potential new contributors) that they will be welcome in this community and shouldn't have to worry about being harassed or ridiculed etc. in the hopes that they can point to specific violations and have moderators deal with it if something happens. But moderators already had that power. And the terms they use in these documents are quite subjective, and so the interpretation ends up being left up to the moderators, which was already the case anyways. Then you have the people who weaponize the document specifically to use their own interpretations in ways that conflict with how the moderators view it in order to stir up drama and "cancel" people they don't like. Other projects who try to be more democratic such as Nix etc., from what I can tell, end up getting too focused on endless discussions and disagreements over terminology that not much ends up getting accomplished that way either. Even when people say simply to keep "politics" out of discussions, then there is always disagreement about what is considered politics, including the people who point out that it's impossible to do anything that's NOT considered politics to someone e.g. "everything is political" if you look at it that way. I'm not sure what the solution is but I'd be interested to hear some ideas.