Let's suppose for a second your code of conduct wasn't a unilaterally imposed totalitarian bulwark, but a "handshake agreement between users and the company".
How, then, would we the users be able to hold the company (and members of its management) accountable for breaking this agreement? Specifically,
Hostile comments - Remember when SE Inc.'s Director of Public Q&A declared company critics are part of the problem and need to leave the network? - those were definitely hostile and derogatory comments. What mechanism did we have to take her to task? None. And what mechanism will we have with this brand new shiny CoC? Again, none.
Bullying and Harassment - The company, via its appointed moderators, has, on at least a few occasions, has engaged in bullying of users critical of its policies. A prominent case was that of Monica Cellio. To this day, the company holds on to its claim that its actions were somehow justified and nobody has answered for that affair. Of course, such actions are usually hidden from the eyes of most users unless others somehow start up a conversation about it; otherwise - it's secret punishments; penal actions against users are not made public (let alone with access to relevant evidence or adjudicative decisions).
Also, I don't know about you, but where I come from, an agreement requires both parties to, well, agree. And that document is the opposite of agreeable.
... but of course, this is all just a rhetorical exercise. Your ideological preening is tiring. You're just going to continue to do what you want, and we'll just have to hope not to become the focus of attention for some weird US-subcultural sensibility of yours. Actually, I'm worried about what exactly your "pain points" this time are, and whether we're going to have more mistreatment of people with these new excuses like last time.
As a service to my fellow users, here is some music to set the mood for reading the CoC.
