We could derive something from the (controversal) Code Of Conflict of the linux kernel developers comunity:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b0bc65729070b9cbdbb53ff042984a3c545a0e34

+Code of Conflict
+----------------
+
+The Linux kernel development effort is a very personal process compared
+to "traditional" ways of developing software.  Your code and ideas
+behind it will be carefully reviewed, often resulting in critique and
+criticism.  The review will almost always require improvements to the
+code before it can be included in the kernel.  Know that this happens
+because everyone involved wants to see the best possible solution for
+the overall success of Linux.  This development process has been proven
+to create the most robust operating system kernel ever, and we do not
+want to do anything to cause the quality of submission and eventual
+result to ever decrease.
+
+If however, anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise
+uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.  If so,
+please contact the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board at
+<[email protected]>, or the individual members, and they
+will work to resolve the issue to the best of their ability.  For more
+information on who is on the Technical Advisory Board and what their
+role is, please see:
+   http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/advisory-councils/tab
+
+As a reviewer of code, please strive to keep things civil and focused on
+the technical issues involved.  We are all humans, and frustrations can
+be high on both sides of the process.  Try to keep in mind the immortal
+words of Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other."

As our collaboration platforms can be seen as some sort of permanent conference, I would think that we could also very well derive a much more explicit Code from:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy

So that it may look something like this, maybe:

The Pirate Party of New Zealand is dedicated to providing a harassment-free collaboration experience for everyone [, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion [insert any other specific concerns here]]. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form. Party members violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the discussion or collaboration platform.

Harassment includes verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination [related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, [your specific concern here]]; sexual images in public spaces; deliberate intimidation; stalking; following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks, discussions or other interactions; inappropriate physical contact; and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behaviour are expected to comply immediately.

If a participant engages in harassing behaviour, the platforms moderators may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the discussion, thread, group or platform. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of the moderator team immediately.

There are two aspects to consider:
1 - behaviour inside the Party - personal like trolling and harasment and policy conflict and how these can be resolved
2 - behaviour outside the Party - bringing the party into disrepute by inappropriate behaviour and misrepresenting the party to the public e.g. claiming a policy to be from PPNZ when the party has no or a different position.

@andrewreitemeyer I propose the CoC as a means to ensure that collaborative platforms are a welcoming, safe and encouraging place for everyone to contribute. Hence it is meant to express our expectations for internal communication.

Obviously 'the party mediators' can only act on a party wide accessible discussion. Subgroups have to ensure the quality of their discussions themselves (or not at all), possibly with a path-way of escalating a particular conflict to the party-wide moderators. I find this quite appropriate as a smaller group may very well be discuss sloppier, while on a discussion of wider reach we would like to see more thought-through and matured entries that are easier to read and less distracting.

I have suggested two texts as a starting-point for discussion. I regard each of them standing near to one of the poles of the spectrum of possibilities.

The Code of Conflict is pretty much a friendly way to say: 'This is a place where harsh comments are to be expected, so please take them lightly and don't mid to much.' - which is pretty much refusing having a Code of Conduct. At least it offers a pathway to complain where you really cannot take something lightly. But that might just be about channelling the meta discussion away from the offending discussion that therefore doesn't get distracted.

I would like to advocate for a CoC along the lines of the second suggestion.
A stricter CoC could be intimitating in it's own ways, signalling that every expression of thought would need to be carefully Politically Corrected before offered to the discussion to prevent yourself from being harassed by the moderators aka 'PC-police'.
But we want to be a place where thoughts outside of the box can be discussed freely (as long as being respectful). So we are facing a bit of a balancing act on this side of the spectrum as well.

I believe the second CoC is explicitly enough to provide proper guidance and protection without being too limiting.

What do you think?

I've supported the idea of codes of conduct since my time as Communications Officer. Of the two documents @hubatmcjuhes offers as examples, I like the first one better. Mainly because it's focussed on what we want, as opposed to a long and detailed list of what we don't want. Also because it's shorter, thus more likely to be read, and friendlier, thus modelling the kind of friendly tone we are asking people to use.

I think we have to proceed with a CoC. We cannot do without. I would like to kindly ask for more people commenting to bring this thing forward.

@strypey what geekfeminism is actually suggesting is to have a short form, just quickly lining out what the general expectations and standards are - which also links to a longer, more explicit version that also contain a description of the conflict resolution process.

We also need to discuss our means of action where the CoC is violated. Right now the only action possible is to ask the offending pirate to kindly review the statement and to edit or remove it him/herself. What if the person cannot or doesn't want to respond appropriately in a timely fashion?

I would like to suggest to establish a team of moderators that - after having asked for a timely and cooperative resolution - is able and mandated to remove the offending comment from the discussion and place it (in an de-personalised version) in a dedicated group-private thread for documentation and archiving purposes of such comments.
If someone finds the removal being an unjustified act, this can be discussed in this separate thread without infesting the original discussion. This way we have a record of our precedence cases and how we as a group have been judging questionable cases, without disclosing our 'dark sides' to the public.

Both my suggestions don't seem to appeal?
No other suggestions on the table?

Then I give it another try. Let's make this the motto:

If you wanna be Dick of the day, just go away!