I don't think it's
actively bad, I just don't find it the best tool for the job. I tend to get bogged down in 'ends' vs. 'means' more than the next person. The flexibility I have around separating paths to a goal from the goal itself often gets me criticized for not supporting the goal, and I'll eye others with suspicion at how they'll go to bat for things that aren't the goal.
My objection to this code might be something in the line of "scope creep," or that it's "distracted," even though those aren't really the right words and might carry connotations I don't mean to imply. It feels like it's more about getting across a list of the ways it's possible to be Wrong On The Internet than it's about inspiring and instilling healthy and productive communication among adults.
--
Here's an example: I'm a member of a 500-person volunteer force that collaborates online, and we only get together in person to do our thing ~7 days a year. A huge flamewar will break out in our online communication 3 or 4 times a year. The prevailing opinion is one I agree with, but I still find the people I agree with argue the points in a way that are toxic to the overall org. But I have yet to see a code of conduct that would stop or heal the damage they're doing.
My department is absent from those threads with a regularity that hasn't gone unnoticed. We didn't plan it nor do we have an internal explanation for how it came to be. But our department head has gotten positive remarks on it from other heads and it would be naive to say it doesn't help maintain our reputation and working relationships outside our team. We cultivate it now, but I'm trying to figure out what caused it in the first place so I can spread that elsewhere.