the same with "Focusing on what is best for the community" .. there is no single "best" and no single "community". its a melting pot of cultures, countries and people. what benefits one might not benefit the others.
this CoC is just an attempt to regulate what you cant regulate. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".
It could be. That's why subjective interpretation and reasonableness are concepts.
there is no single "best" and no single "community"
There is clearly a single community by any reasonable definition – diffuse though it may be. The role of a set of guidelines is to establish what behaviour that community has generally decided is acceptable or not acceptable. We accept this kind of moderation guideline all of the time.
maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".
Yeah, that's basically what it says in a little bit more detail, and with a few more examples. So where's the issue?
just look at the stuff happening to Theodore Ts’o https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504
In this case, I'd prefer to either have something more objective, or nothing at all for such abusive people to hide behind.
Of course there are grey areas. There inevitably are with any set of guidelines. But what do you realistically expect them to contain? An itemised list of every action which is allowed or proscribed?
Instead, these are a general set of guidelines as to how a community should conduct itself – subject as any are to interpretation by those with influence – but a useful reference nonetheless. I'm frankly baffled at the idea that people find this hard to grasp.
But wouldn't you agree that it's generally better to have a set of pretty clear guidelines that might not always be watertight, versus an _entirely_ personal, subjective set of inscrutable rules?