I’ll be adding my thoughts here once again, due to the high influx of messages I’ve been receiving in Discord with regards to my vote.
It will be a long read, and I apologize for that, however, I am not taking this position lightly, and feel obligated to share most of my thoughts on this matter, mostly because I believe this proposal itself can genuinely damage the underlying founding philosophies of our governance proposals, alongside their binding nature, and I feel those thoughts should be shared. A worst-case scenario for me is seeing further division in this community as a consequence of this decision, however, I do genuinely feel we still have room for discourse, dialogue, and debate, thanks to the conversations I’ve had with multiple community members over the last week, which were held in good faith.
First off, I would like to thank those who took the time to pose reasonable debates my way, as opposed to ad hominem attacks aimed at attacking my person, as opposed to my ideas. I will reiterate, Jar0d is indeed guilty of this approach and has used such an approach with me in the past to attempt to sway my opinion, which I personally did not appreciate.
Nonetheless, that does not constitute a right to ban that said individual from the space; especially when many of our community members have been guilty of this practice in one shape or form throughout our history. I’ve already reiterated the personal belief, alongside many other individuals in this discussion, that Jar0d is the product of a larger, more systemic issue we’re facing as a community, and Jar0d is simply a product of the problem, and not the root cause.
However, more important than this debate is the precedent we will set by passing this vote. I would like to remind everyone about the specificity of this decision, and why I have a problem with this proposal, especially from a governance standpoint:
Permanently Ban user jar0d from viewing, or engaging with :
All Decentraland DAO Discord servers
All Decentraland DAO proposal discussion Forums.
Recommendation to the DCL Foundation that they Permanently ban jar0d from viewing, or engaging with:
All Decentraland Foundation Discord servers
All Decentraland Foundation proposal discussion Forums.
Ban userJar0d from using Decentraland platform in-World discussion and voice communication.
Any and all other current or future communication channels not mentioned.
First off, one must remember that the aim of a governance proposal and vote is to come to a legally/policy-binding agreement of sorts, which can be actively implemented into the DAO’s framework in one shape or form.
The binding nature of a governance proposal inherently requires the proposal itself to be enactable, not just from an ideal standpoint, but from a practical standpoint too. Despite this governance proposal being in its 3rd Stage, it is clear that, right off the bat, it should have been shot down as an invalid question; not because the question of banning Jar0d from Discord is an invalid debate, but rather, because the key specificities outlined as binding action points within this proposal are obtuse, and ultimately, cannot be implemented by our governance framework as of yet.
Why?
There are several problems with this approach, that, as other members pointed out, have been brought about due to our fractured community and lack of leadership on the side of governance and overall implementations of best practices. For starters, from a governance perspective, there’s no clear application/indication of the DAO’s relationship and authority over Discord servers, nor is there a clear understanding of how the DAO itself can and should self-regulate these servers.
Does Permanently Banning Jar0d from viewing and engaging* with ‘All Decentraland DAO Discord servers’ mean that any supplementary discord servers surrounding Decentraland-focused discussions should have Jar0d banned?
One must not forget that governance proposals aim to be binding in their nature. The moment we pass proposals that we cannot enact (proposals that are obtuse in their nature), is the moment we weaken our governance-focused decision-making processes as a whole.
So question 1, regarding the point of the specificity: should this proposal pass, are we to then attempt to hold all Discord servers accountable to keep Jar0d, and his alts, banned from ‘viewing’ and ‘engaging’ with any DCL-focused Discords?
Point two:
banning Jar0d from viewing and engaging with proposal discussions on the forum.
Why is this a red flag?
What this point basically means is that we are binding ourselves to give the authority (and it is still unclear who has that authority, from a practical, action-based perspective), to effectively revoke the inherent right of a community member to read, write, propose and vote in a system where Jar0d’s investments are his own. In any political environment, such a proposal would be seen as a farce; not because Jar0d communication methods are excusable, but rather because it infringes upon an inherent right that is supposed to be inalienable in its nature. To anyone who has a background in human rights, this should already be a massive red flag for you, and all one needs to do is look at history to assess how such decisions and precedents can lead to questionable and dangerous decision-making moving forward.
Once again, I reiterate, how do you plan to shoulder the responsibility of dealing with such a set precedent, and who do you foresee shouldering such a responsibility vis-a-vis the precedent set? On what grounds should we be deciding to alienate an actor within our system, and do you really believe, in the long run, within an asynchronous decision-making system, that a tangible line can be drawn to collectively protect our right to engagement?
I’m extremely skeptical that such an approach can even be carried out, let alone what repercussions it can (and will) cause in the long term, and we must be prudent when taking governance decisions, unless our aim to nullify and ridicule the governance process altogether. I will reiterate; I feel this move will be one step in the direction of making the supposed binding nature of governance proposals obsolete.
Moving ahead:
Recommendation to the DCL Foundation that they Permanently ban jar0d from viewing, or engaging with any and all other current or future communication channels not mentioned.
Once again, the implementation pathway for such a proposal is so obtuse and unclear, that it once again renders our governance proposal process to nothing more than a ‘joke’. Such a proposal is counter-intuitive to the very ideals and principles this platform was founded on in the first place.
What is, in very practical terms, the technical and reasonable pathway for this proposal to be implemented? Is your plan to ban Jar0d’s IP, and if so, how do you plan to stop him from using a VPN? Is your plan to then actively monitor and censor individuals that spew out a specific kind of rhetoric, and if so, who will be the individuals (or systems) tasked with reviewing and assessing those said decisions on behalf of the community?
This point in this proposal doesn’t just set us an obligation to censor and limit the engagement and inclusion of a single individual in the present moment, with our current systems, but also sets out the obligation for all future communication platforms to be rooted in the ideals of centralized control and systemic censorship.
I feel many of you are rushing to this decision without considering the implications and/or results that this decision may have on our governance process. Such a decision is far bigger than Jar0d, and whilst no one should question his seemingly consistent ability to lash out at individuals within the community, we should all be questioning how far we should be exercising our right to vote and curate a space we feel comfortable in.
This proposal is, in my view, a clear step in the direction of rendering our governance platform obsolete; where we naively implement binding decisions in an obtuse manner which is still left to open interpretation. We are setting a precedent here without systems to implement the said decision, whilst simultaneously binding ourselves to uphold ideals that are counter-intuitive to the founding ideals of the very technologies we are dealing with.
I implore you all to rethink this decision; not to protect Jar0d or his rhetoric, which I openly condone, but rather to protect the little respect and trust left in our governance framework, in an attempt to ensure that every binding decision we take, both now, and in the future, is something we can implement, as opposed to it seemingly being a shot in the dark, without any plan, idea, or system to ensure it remains enforced.
CONCLUSION & Moving Forward
It is my hope that all of jar0d’s victims, both past and present, read this proposal and take the necessary action to permanently ban him.
In doing so, it is my hope that the Decentraland community can once again reclaim their right to engage with other members free from the fear of harassment. And approving this action will also serve as a deterrent and reminder to all others that the type of behavior that jar0d has for too long engaged in will no longer be tolerated within our community.
I do not wish to see our community falling victim to the crippling results of harassment and hate speech. However, I do not wish to see our community falling victim to the temporary allure of censorship and centralization either.
When investing all my time, energy, and effort in Decentraland, I signed up to partake in a system that is bold enough to avoid rinsing and repeating the same mistakes our already existing governance structures have fallen victim to in the past. Beyond my personal naivete, I believe I signed up for a system that is somewhat crazy enough to attempt to learn from the mistakes of systems past, to learn from history, and to take a stab at new governance processes that can look beyond what has already been tried, and tested, and ultimately, seen to repeatedly fail.
If you have a problem with Jar0d, mute him.
If you want Jar0d out of your Discord, begin a governance process for the collective moderation and control of ‘Official DAO Discords’.
If you have a problem with the moderation process itself, build out a governance proposal that can allow the DAO to have a say in official channel moderation.
If you wish to control the forums, begin a governance proposal that can start giving the DAO ownership of the forums, with clear, transparent, and reliable systems being prototyped on how these platforms can be moderated in a decentralized, asynchronous context.
Tired of the communication seen in the ‘Official DAO Discord’? Start a new discord, with a group of people you feel you can have healthy conversations with.
Do you feel that someone’s comments in the forums are rude, harmful, and dangerous? Flag it, and get it removed from the dialogue process.
This approach towards singling out Jar0d is not going to work, and I trust that most of you have the technical knowledge to know by now that permanently banning him isn’t something that will work either. I can honestly list out numerous ways he can circumnavigate this decision if he’s willing, which will hit the community back with a whole new wave of AI-powered discourse, which will be far more damaging to the community. And what then? We will all have the precedent set to ban one account; is it far-fetched for us to assume we will have the inclination to then ban accounts en masse as soon as they’re spewing out rhetoric that is harmful to the community, (or worse, rhetoric that not all of us agree with)?
We’re navigating in uncharted and dangerous waters here, and I genuinely hope I’m not alone in being worried about the potential outcomes of this decision.