Vague rules = you need competent moderation with levelheads to actually determine what defines the gray line
Strict rules = you don't, but it's about 50 times the overhead in defining things
Currently we are blessed with competent moderation alongside Gieb being willing to let new moderators on the team so long as they meet his requirements as he has done this several times in the past year. I am averse to any sort of intrusion forcing him to do anything because he runs a tight ship and it doesn't take very many bad moderators, especially ones that have the French Revolution style Representative-on-Mission approval where they don't actually need to worry about Gieb or anyone else thinking they're bad moderators because the Board as a private group likes them.
This post is both showcasing the vagueness of the CoC (which I actually do think is fine, just as FAF Rules are vague and can be taking to an absurdist degree) and the danger of anything talking about having Board put their fingers into moderation. Leave subareas of FAF to the actual experts in that subarea.
Honestly if anything I think it's pretty silly to have the Board be some defining member in determining violations of the CoC and it would make way more sense to have a proposal removing that than anything else. Have the Association and the Board in turn define the CoC (and FAF Rules if you want, honestly the fact these are separate things is pretty silly), but they don't need to enforce it.