Perhaps so.
That’s not the case with me though: I’m not an elected moderator and I don’t even know one.
Also I don’t know that anyone votes for the CoC, that might instead be a doctrine that’s imposed by the host (e.g. by SE) and defines the framework or the rules of engagement which users are supposed to be able to read and understand - and which moderators both enforce and are themselves bound by.
Sorry I think my own writing style is terrible at being welcoming or sounding natural.
In case you’re interested though, as feedback here’s how my inner monolog subtitles what you’ve written.
Be respectful and polite
“Is that ‘better say nothing – children should be seen and not heard, speak when spoken to but otherwise listen to their betters’?”
Treat others how you would like to be treated.
(You’ve heard my views about that already, above)
Presume good faith
“People might be mean to you, or swear like sailors, but don’t you say anything out of line. Remain timid.”
“We all know how to swear but at least let’s pretend: that we usually keep our trousers on here.”
“And ‘keep it’ is colloquial, slang: so this community is a monoculture, so, beware (which is aka be very afraid).”
“Now you’re talking (i.e. I warm to what you’re saying). This is prescriptive not proscriptive, tells me how I should and may behave and what I can give (i.e. “constructive feedback”).”
“Yes.” (i.e. ditto, I am warm to this)
“And yes. SE went a little further, saying to focus on the content not the person – ‘no ad hominem’ is how I call that.”
IOW I thought it didn’t start well. Maybe if it were a bit permissive to begin with, instead of starting with a “don’t be naughty” – maybe a mission statement or a definition of what’s on-topic, the extent to which commentary or extended dialog might be welcome, when to change the topic and how to know when to stop, whether new people are welcome or whether this is a “closed user group”.