That is a tricky one. In my opinion, in the case of abuse as pointed out in the draft CoC, I think this is fair, and necessary that we all for reports of abuse in private, and with secrecy. Without it, an accusor is likely immediately going to be lambasted by the perpetrator.
As I grow older, I begin to see the wisdom in the admonition to, “never say behind one’s back what you will not say to one’s face.” For starters, this heuristic is incredibly useful for discerning which problems are actually important.
Any problem that requires direct confrontation is very likely a serious problem; any problem that does not require direct confrontation is not. In keeping with this, those who are inclined to complain about people behind their backs don’t really have a serious complaint since it doesn’t merit a direct confrontation. What they really seek when they complain is validation of the legitimacy of their emotional pain (in that they seek acknowledgement that their emotional pain is real and is a normal, healthy response to the alleged offense).
The best response to any sort of complaint is to offer to mediate a dispute between the accuser and the accused. What SJWs like the one quoted above don’t seem to realize is that this serves two functions. First, it makes quick work of discerning which complaints are actually legitimate. Second, and more importantly, it enables a quick solution to the legitimate problems.
There are two reasons why secret tribunals predicated on the assumption of guilt are wrong. First, they enable injustice to be easily carried out. Moreover, they make it easy to legitimize the trivial. I would guess that SJWs are especially blind to the latter issue because SJWs value feelings above all else. Emotions, though, are rather trivial insofar as they are dynamic and easily changed. As such, chasing after an ideal emotional state is a fool’s errand. Thus, SJWs hate direct confrontation and on-the-record dispute resolution because it does not validate their emotional state; if anything, this method of conflict resolution tends to relegate their emotional state to the status of nearly-irrelevant afterthought, which does considerable damage to their self-esteem.
The rather alarming conclusion to draw from all of this is that SJWs are slaves to their emotions, rather than masters thereof. They cannot quell their anger when slighted; rather they must have the source of their anger punished in order to feel right with themselves.
Moreover, SJWs are narcissists of the highest order. They cannot conceive that others may not actually care about them, and may thus act without any concern for their feelings. Consequently, every slight is taken personally because they project their feelings of their own importance onto those whose actions have caused offense.
In essence, SJWs are coddled children whose parents doted on them and spared them from having to grow into functioning adults. They are no more emotionally mature at twenty-six than they were at six, which is why they run to an authority figure when a peer causes them emotional pain. They are tattling and want mommy and daddy to fix the problem. They have a child’s sense of justice, and any organization that is ruled by them will soon look like it was ruled by a child. Thus, any organization that wishes to remain free from SJWs would do well to respond to Code of Conduct proposals with the polite but firm reply, “the adults are in charge here.”