When/where are the TL;DR versions used as opposed to the full version? Or are they only there to help in this review process? (I hope that's insubstantial enough and easily answered with a comment/edit.)

@ChristianRau They'll be used at points of entry (e.g, when someone opens chat for the very first time, posts an answer or question, suggests an anon edit, etc). I don't think we've fully identified a comprehensive list yet, but that's the gist of it.

As for recommending stack overflow to my friends, I'm not sure (but not because of this). This site has incredibly high standards for people who stick around but not really for fire and forget askers. "Expect to be held to the highest standard of behavior while the people you're interacting with aren't" is a tough sell on my friends, who already distrust stack overflow in general due to recent events. Mind you, I've gotten quite a bit of flak both on here and offline for even being involved in certain stack communities that are percieved as too concerned about niceness. Idk

The draft speaks about the Stack Exchange code of conduct, but your post talks almost exclusively about Stack Overflow. Could you please clarify, are you looking for feedback specifically for Stack Overflow, or for the rest of the sites as well? If it is the former, you should probably post this on the Stack Overflow meta.

This doesn't seem to fit any of the 4 questions you asked, so I am leaving it here as a comment. (Let me know if it is ok to move this to an answer, I will do so.): Does the Code of Conduct apply retrospectively to the content posted until it officially comes into effect?

By the way, you can probably relegate the backstory about Jeff and Joel to the end of the post. Your title asks for feedback about the new Code of Conduct, but the link to it is about 3/5ths of the way into the description, and the 4 questions you want feedback on are hard to find. You might want to start with the Code of Conduct and the 4 questions, and put all the other stories in footnotes. Hate to put it this way, but the 10 paragraphs of history of Joel and Jeff are of no interest to most of the people here.

@MaskedMan The problem there comes from the ambiguity of terms... The company name is "Stack Overflow" and that term technically refers to all 170+ sites of the "Stack Exchange Network" but "Stack Overflow" also applies to the site stackoverflow.com only... to avoid that ambiguity, the CoC refers to "Stack Exchange Network" so that it's clear that the policy relates to everywhere on the site. :)

@Catija ... and you know that because you have been here for long enough to know that the company name is the same as one of its sites. It is still ambiguous to someone who doesn't know that. Anyway, why leave the ambiguity and hope that the readers will understand what it means? It doesn't cost much more effort to say "StackExchange network" wherever Stack Overflow is mentioned in this post. Also, it is not unusual to collect feedback on a specific site before rolling out policy changes elsewhere. So if they did indeed mean to collect feedback only on Stack Overflow, we wouldn't know.

@MaskedMan Much of the content here that refers to SO is talking about a time before SE existed, so the term "Stack Overflow" is actually correct. There's only one reference that should probably read "Stack Exchange Network" in this question and that's in the first bullet point. It's worth noting that the staff tend to refer to the network as "Stack Overflow" internally, so it requires a poke from time to time as a reminder that the broader community may not think of it quite the same way.

@Catija Again, you know that because you have been here for a long while. If the goal of this CoC is to be welcoming to everyone, we should probably stop using these "insider stories" altogether. A new user who has probably been here for only about a week has no interest in what the company was called 10 years ago. Unless the goal here is to create an "insiders vs newbies" divide, the history of the site shouldn't even matter to a newbie.

I agree somewhat in content, if not in tone, with Masked Man: I suggest you change the wording in question (1) to refer to the entire network as SE Network rather than as SO.

Code of conduct ... and then I see things like this question about providing jobs one could apply to - flag - downvote and turn around and provide at least a pointer as comment ... clearly the OP took no time to look at what SO does at all.

This whole thing translates into "NO FUN ALLOWED". Why not lighten up on the CoC and let members self moderate more, like adults.

@SuperStew: "This whole thing translates into "NO FUN ALLOWED"." That's what people said when we stopped allowing joke questions. When we instituted the Be Nice policy. When we instituted Too Broad or Primarily Opinion Based. And so forth. Somebody will that any policy takes away their "fun". Well, if removing their fun makes the site better... I don't have a problem with that.

@SuperStew Fun's great, but when fun distracts from or impedes the primary purpose of the site, it becomes problematic. Some people do have problems self-moderating, which is why do need this sort of thing, and honestly, it doesn't hurt any of us to be reminded of the standards once in a while.

@NicolBolas better being highly objective here. A lot of those things you mentioned would become necessary as the site/network grew to remain functional. But when you get to the point where week long bans are being issued for using the phrase "stick up their ass" to refer to an undefined 3rd party in a comment on my own answer, you're quickly approaching Tumblr level of Safe Space Hyper Moderation. The mods don't need to play Thought Police.

@HDE226868 Sure, I would agree things that impede the primary purpose of the site should be halted, but that hasn't been my personal experience. For instance, I once saw a question asked in French, so I left a joke in a comment (which was really just a movie quote) meant to remind them to switch to English, and get a laugh. Instead I got a week ban. When I asked the mods why I was banned for my "funny joke", I got a rant about how offensive it was. Bottom line is the mods seem to interject their personal politics way too much.

@SuperStew Not agreeing with how mods implemented policy in your case doesn't really have much to do with the code of conduct; it sounds like a different issue entirely.

@SuperStew: Nobody ever looks at their own "personal politics" and how they're are "interjecting" them into the site. No, everyone sees themselves as being completely apolitical; it's the other people inserting their "personal politics" against you. I have no idea of the specifics of your ban or how appropriate it was, but I find it very difficult to believe that it was done solely because of "personal politics" rather than "you being rude".

@HDE226868 I guess my whole point was that the CoC is already overbearing and there are other issues that need to be addressed.

@SuperStew Ehhhhh. Not sure I totally agree with this statement, and my main site is Gaming.

@NicolBolas I don't mean "personal politics" as in that mod decided to stick it to me because they somehow knew i voted for X. Perhaps "personal sensitivities" is a better phrase. I suspect this particular mod was hyper sensitive and bent on being offended on the other party's behalf. I have a hard time seeing how else I get a week long ban rather than a warning.

@fbueckert I don't know about that site?

@SuperStew The point I'm making is that if anywhere there should be fun allowed, it'd be at Gaming. And we adhere very closely to the core SE motto, instead.

Confusing. More words are not going to make a not nice user nice.

Not that this site has a problem but I would like code of conduct for moderators. I feel like a few moderators abuse their authority.