I think that CoCs are not bad, but the question asked by the article or rather the problem found is: Who writes the CoCs? Who is "we"? My understanding of the article is that there's a "weirdo nerd" group, which has their CoCs. These are rather loosely defined (the weirdos like it this way) and build the status quo (because the weirdos were there first, they defined the space, they wrote the first CoC). Now, various groups of newcomers - all better versed in the social game than the original CoC authors - join this space and start a "war of CoCs". Every new subgroup says "We and ONLY WE have the right to push CoCs", while the next subgroup cries foul, because in their world only THEY are the final arbiters of the CoCs. That's why we are both right on the point of "good at the game": Some groups use the "we are bad at the game, so don't bother us" tactic and try to win the war that way. Another group is more direct and uses the "we are good at the game, so listen to us" tactic, another group uses a third tactic. All abuse their skills for their own purposes. But that is not the point.

The point is: In the end none of these group has a right to redefine the CoCs. They've joined a space which has been built by the "weirdo nerds" for their purposes and has the CoCs those deemed fair. Joining this space was no problem, the "weirdo nerds" welcomed them (or didn't bother to say: GO AWAY, both interpretations are acceptable), but now they try to dominate this space by abusing their skills in the "game of social skills" and rewrite the spaces CoC to one they like more and that's neither fair nor right.