About the new code of conducts; I am partly welcoming and partly disagree.
The good thing it remembers us to not tell another "lazy" or that type of discriminatory comment, actually the the person who is being pinpointed, does have her/his own problems and own respects which may be difficult to understand for others. Yes, we need to be respectful to everyone. We can hardly have a "respect all, suspect all" view; but we cannot confirm whether someone is intentionally lazy.
Avoid joke is also a good advice, because jokes are usually "indirect" ways that could delay the convey of actual information, and confuses some people and led to misunderstanding (and simply we can't blame a person if (s)he is unable to crack the hidden meaning of a joke)
But I disagree with the next part; I found 2 big areas in these codes of conduct, are flawed.
ABSENCE OF SEPARATE GUIDELINE FOR USERS WITH AUTHORITATIVE POSITIONS.
1. The most hurting responses are more often obtained from many reputed or highly qualified users than newbie users and students, who are unaware about our website structure. Also the hurting behaviour of most newbies differ from hurting behaviour of most experts. So there must be separate guides for (1) newbie users and for (2) highly reputed/ highly qualified/ more experienced (high activity for more than 1 years).
There must be more exemption from punishment for newbie users. Particularly the "examples" in that page mostly pinpoints new users. Actually new users feel insecurities and panics with fate of their submitted questions, and also tend to use improper wording, failing to express actual question, and misinterpret others' responses. Also in this community we commonly use a specific form of language (a new dialect?), otherwise known as highly formal language (As seen in Dilbert comic strip), and many of common people are unaware of this form of language use, that adds up to misinterpretation. So we must have patience and tolerance to gently teach our community guidelines, and we need to be excellent listeners to newbie users.
And similarly there must be separate guidelines so that experienced users stay alert that they do not show arrogance and do not use authoritative force. Also, experienced users should learn to keep questions alive until it reaches an appropriate audience. A downvote without an explanation, and a very early close vote, should be considered as rudeness. Also the so the experienced users, such as moderators and editors, must learn how not to make newbies anxious. Moderators need to be more caring.
AUTISM-SPECTRUM PEOPLE LACK AN INTUITIVE GRASP ON CODE OF CONDUCTS AND SOCIAL NORMS.
2. The list of unacceptable behaviours: the friendly and unfriendly versions: will cause cumbersome situation on an user with autism-spectrum (such as me); such 'conditions' would be useless because it may be impossible to comprehend what way of saying make people hurt. So whenever implementing such complex norms (which you can't finish with even several million more examples), you do an injustice for an autism spectrum user (whatever diagnosed or undiagnosed).
The injustice will take place in following way.
A. I agree, sometimes an action like edits or normal feedbacks could be misinterpreted as rude or deleterious. In such case, please do not keep the norm hidden within only examples. Explicitly mention, "Please explain if your action is not rude. Such as if an user express a discomfort seeing the submission edited, tell the user that an edit is a routine part of a review , which can actually improve the submission, and the original poster can again improve the question"
B. Language can only sugarcoat intentions. Language can't change intentions. We require good intentions, and we do not need a bad intention in a disguise that is even more harmful than a bad intention without disguise. So we should request people to really have good intentions than disguised language.
C. Directness in work environment is important for survival of an autism spectrum person. Also directness can provide a friendly and simple world for neurotypicals too, directness is a prerequisite for autism spectrum.The problem is two-fold. (1) Unfortunately, in a "normal" conversation the neurotypicals watches and listens a lot of complex parameters other than the intended meaning. So in cases an autism spectrum person aware about only the literal information content; many neurotypicals may mistakenly interpret it as rude, and misunderstands. (where it doesn't mean anything else than the literal information) (2) Neurotypicals, while delivering their turn, often sugarcoat their message, such as by adding extra words, or telling about something else and expecting the listener will 'teleologically' understand the meaning. But this is a very wrong way of communication with autism-spectrum people because they'll perhaps fail to decipher the metaphor. Now if you punish an autism-spectrum person for not being able to sugarcoat the message, it is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you don't know how ridiculous it is. It is as ridiculous as to punish an earthworm for not being able to fly. Take a simple example. A current example says “Are you speaking English? If so, I can’t tell.” It is a simple and direct statement, and I fail to figure out why it is offensive. Its simply an user is telling (S)he don't know English well, and is unable to respond to certain request. Now suppose if I wrote "I can't answer this part of your question because I don't understand the quantum mechanics"... I have to face punishment! What a hell of injustice.
D. Even a neurotypical person's talk are misinterpreted in many cases (in real life); and moreover in this global community with members from various cultures and languages, misinterpretations would be very high.
E. There are scopes of intentional misuse of these punishments.
I think, a fast action should be taken ONLY if the speech is "clearly offensive" such as hate-speeches, sexual harassments, personal attacks, etc (and I think such level of is rarely reached). In case of comparatively milder situation, (Including my example when a sentence carrying an unintended "neurotypical" gesture but the speaker is unaware of it), and other cases like a mild level of arguments; an immediate block or immediate punishment would worsen everything. Instead they themselves or other users could positively help them to come out of misunderstandings.