[rdtsc]

> So what is the use of a CoC?

In this case the use is that the maintainer took the time to create it. You can argue that it is useless. Even the maintainer seem to largely agree. So why not have it? It is already there. Why show negativity.

A CoC is a bit like a trademark. To be useful it has to be enforced. So it can just sit there, and if nobody bothers to look at, it will just occupy some extra bytes on some server (Github).

> That paradoxically leads to worse behavior.

Yeah, it might be right. But it is a hypothetical. Let's think of a positive hypothetical upside -- for example the first thing comes to mind is it sends a message to minorities, women, those who are shy, beginners that this project is approachable. We are attempting to be sensitive and welcoming by at least spending time to create a CoC. It is a general message perhaps as well "We are aware these kind bad things happen in the programming community so we did something about". That's it.

[hsod]

People resent being regulated, even if that regulation has no practical effect on their behavior. Most people who are nice are nice because they choose to be. Having someone come in and tell you "you better be nice or else" is kind of insulting and robs you of a bit of agency. I think that's a natural human reaction.

That being said, I'm generally in favor of Codes of Conduct because I think the good they do outweighs the bad. But I don't buy your argument that it's a totally neutral document and people should just not vote because it's "already there".

[nitrogen]

it sends a message

Does that actually work?

[rdtsc]

> Does that actually work?

Don't know that's why I said it was "a positive hypothetical upside". It was in response to gp post about "well what if it has a has a negative effect somehow". So I just replied with an equally un-substantiated claim "Well it could have a positive effect too".