[DAO:6dcc644] Code of Ethics

by 0x5b5cc427c1d81db4f94de4d51d85ce122d63e244 (Fehz)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Code of Ethics (conduct)


This proposal aims to establish a comprehensive Code of Ethics for the Decentraland DAO and its communication channels.


As the DAO’s influence grows, it becomes essential to establish a robust Code of Ethics that outlines the principles, standards, and ethical guidelines that all participants must adhere to. This proposal seeks to create a comprehensive document that will encompass various aspects of the DAO’s activities.


As the Decentraland DAO continues to experience rapid growth and attract incremental participation from diverse community members and stakeholders, the need for a robust Code of Ethics becomes increasingly evident.

A diverse community brings fresh perspectives and ideas, but it also poses challenges related to potential conflict escalation. Without a well-defined framework and clear guidelines for moderators to apply rules fairly and consistently, there is a risk of subjective decision-making and inconsistency in enforcing standards of conduct.

By establishing a comprehensive Code of Ethics, the DAO aims to create a better and more welcoming space for new joiners and a safer space for the current community members. This framework will promote transparency, fairness, and inclusivity, providing a solid foundation for all community members to participate and contribute with confidence.


The Decentraland DAO’s Code of Ethics will be founded on core principles, including fairness and inclusivity, privacy and data protection, open decision-making, and conflict resolution. These guiding values form the foundation for cultivating an ecosystem that is inclusive, secure, and accountable.

This document is structured into distinct sections to encompass a comprehensive framework that guides the behavior and interactions of all community members:

I. Preamble: In this introductory section, the Code sets forth the fundamental values and overarching principles that underpin the DAO’s ethical foundation.

II. Core Principles and Guidelines: This section outlines the key principles that form the backbone of the Code of Ethics. These principles serve as guiding lights for all participants, fostering a culture of collaboration, openness, and responsible conduct.

III. Enforcement Mechanisms: The Code further defines specific rules and guidelines for community engagement and communication. It explicitly prohibits excessive attacks, insults, trolling, flaming, bullying, baiting for arguments, and the use of offensive language towards others. This section ensures a safe and respectful environment for all members to express their views and ideas freely.

IV. Rule Enforcement: The final section addresses the enforcement mechanisms of the Code of Ethics. It outlines the procedures and consequences for non-compliance with the established ethical standards.

V. Closing: final statement.

━━━━━> CODE OF ETHICS DRAFT <━━━━━

In the event this proposal is approved, community feedback and insights will be collected to help shape the final document.


Recognizing the importance of actively involving all community members in the rule-making process and to ensure a truly inclusive and representative framework, rules and guidelines, the adoption of a well-structured Code of Ethics will strengthen community trust, enhance the overall experience for participants, and ensure the Decentraland DAO remains as a sustainable ecosystem for all its stakeholders.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Just in case you don’t find the link to the draft document:

━━━━━> CODE OF ETHICS DRAFT <━━━━━

To me, this Code of Ethics just seems more or less like a re-wording of the existing rules.

Categorizing spamming and trolling as a “low tier offense” that doesnt count as a strike is what we have today. And as we have seen, this doesnt go far enough. 1 hour - 24 hour mutes arent consequences. They’re delays.

Voting no, since I dont feel like this is a big enough change to existing moderation policy.

Thank you for taking the time to move this forward. It was an easy yes for me the first round and another yes this round.

Good point! Still have time to add/remove things for the final version. So, what comes to my mind, is to add something specific like “falling into that behaviours several times will mean to count as STRIKE 1”.

Why has it taken you guys this long to address this issue?

Clearly you both failed at performing your mandatory duties, fulfilling orders, keeping up with the guidelines. You both let this go on for far too long without taking any serious action or responsibility. I don’t think this proposal is going to repair the damage that’s already been inflicted. Community does not forget. You both have knowingly & willingly tarnished & damaged the reputation of DAO. Deleting users/members messages, muting users, changing the topic was never going to be a viable nor effective long term solution. You, out of all people should know that, there would be consequences & repercussions to your actions, especially given your positions.

I trust that you will do the right thing to redeem yourselves by effectively & immediately resigning from your current positions.

Accompanying poll submitted here:

I propose either 0.25 strike, or 0.5 strike for offenses defined as “low tier”.

1 Like

Tier 2 - Medium tier offense (Notable violations of the C.O.E.): For notable violations like harassing and insulting any member of the community as well as the constant disregard of any line from this code. A 24 hours minimum time-out will be applied to the user and 1 strike will be added to the user’s record.

That seems like a pretty subjective and easily abused parameter where friends of the moderator will be able to walk on the line of acceptable in ways that people the moderator has a biased against will not.

A couple questions that pop to mind are:
What separates “Trolling” from “Harassment”?
Does “you are smarter than this” count as an insult and would it get someone a strike?

1 Like

I like @jar0d’s question and I posted the following in the Strikes governance proposal and it applies here as well.

Who specifically determines if it is FUD or a valid question? I know there are questions asked sometimes by people that are legitimate questions or concerns and the person questioned feels they are attacks because of other circumstances. It seems to me that we wired to get on the defensive side when any question that has any kind of negative aspect to it. I am also curious about this “mocking” cause if you ask me there is constant mocking even if not spoken whether with memes, gifs and even lately name changes. So if we do this then how would it count with those things? For every meme/gif or in the case of a mocking name every post be a count against them? If this were to past I can think of many people that will have strikes against them quite quickly. Also how strict to we get when we are in a decentralized community. Freedom of expression/Freedom of speech do we follow what has been written IRL or do we create our own rules? I think that if a set of rules are voted on in a decentralized world and passed then there can no longer be the excuse of well we are decentralized that shouldn’t be that way. It may be about freedom and transparency but it is also about what the people choose and how they vote for a proposal. Thank you.

This means that I do believe Yes, there should be one, however this needs to be done very carefully and be quite specific IMO. I will vote Yes today but any future votes will depend on what is written.

Don’t talk to me about freedom of speech or freedom of expression where the name Shemale gets banned in a so called decentralized platform in 2023. For those who will say but this name was used to preach hate, I guess the same can be said for all names including one’s IRL name depending on what perspective you want to look at things.

The Code of Ethics, and the moderators - as voted on by the community.

Yes, that’s the point.

According to the Code of Ethics and rules just like any other discord and forum. Its not a new concept.

Its not a matter of all or nothing. No one said we cant have decentralization within a safe and respectful environment. How many people are not voicing their opinions due to the toxicity? How many people are being silenced by toxic members? Freedoms are better enjoyed when they arent being abused. What I see in the community is a very select few toxic individuals abusing their freedom, leading to many other individuals not exercising theirs.

I see this as a formalization of the Discord Rules and Codification of the Code of Ethics such that they can be enforced with more legitimacy.

I’d also like to discuss integration pathways to amend the code of ethics over time, but I think its important to have something like this codified and agreed upon by the community, as the Discord Rules themselves were not developed through a governance proposal.

voting yes. hope this is a step towards making dcl an more amicable environment

I am voting no as they failed on all levels.

What about @jar0d questions?

I don’t agree with a 3 strike approach. We should have determined consequences for specific actions, some of which may involve a permanent ban, such as scams. However, community members are meant to participate in the DAO for years, even decades to come and a 3 strike rule means that some community members may be held responsible for offenses committed 3, 5, 7 years ago, even small offenses like trolling, if considered a strike, can carry on for a lifetime. This is over-policing the community. I agree with the rules of engagement but not the enforcement mechanisms. Voting NO for now.

I’m leaning on my background in behaviorism in thinking that WHATEVER we do, we need:

Clear expectations
Clear consequences
Someone willing and able to execute them. (The consequences, not the user)

As a special education teacher, I was the one who got students who threatened teachers, students, myself, everyone. I’ve had death threats against me, I’ve been punched by 16 year olds, stabbed with pencils, chairs thrown at me, body slammed, etc. etc, and I was still expected to come to school and teach them the next day. It’s called FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and it ensures that each student is entitled to an education. HOWEVER, when the behavior of that one student begins infringing on the FAPE of the students around them, then we can talk about changing their setting.

So if I apply this same reasoning in the DAO, when a few users start making the Discord so toxic that it begins to deter from the experience of other users, I think we need to change the setting of the people doing harm. But don’t make it ambiguous, make it crystal clear how we need to conduct ourselves, BEFORE hand. Everyone gets to start fresh. Everyone knows what words or behavior will get them banned. We’re all human, we all say stuff we regret later. We also just have to be held accountable for how our actions can impact the world around us.

You are currently voting no on banning one of those toxic users using Esteban’s delegated VP. Your story does not stick, you will have to take you hypersensitivity elsewhere.

Voting Yes, and I’ve 3 suggestions:

  • Is not clear in the code if the “wide-ranging scope” includes Private messaging and Social networks. Should made explicit whether it does or doesn’t.
  • May be good to have a word about how to prevent misuse of the code by moderators.
  • May be good to make explicit if the Enforcement Mechanism can or can’t be overruled by DAO votes, and if the strikes come with some sort of cooldown (strikes expiring over time) or not.

Thanks all for your feedback!

First of all, I want to highlight again what Matimio mentioned about the importance of having something like this codified and agreed upon by the community, as the Discord Rules themselves were not developed through a governance proposal.

While we’re still gathering information and feedback to move forward with the Binding Governance Proposal and the final version of the document if this Draft Proposal passes, below you’ll find answers to some of your questions:

  1. Low tier offenses: based on comments and feedback, we’ve agreed that toxic behavior from the lower tier should have consequences if repeated, so we’ll work on something to address that.
  2. Cool downs: the first point brings us to the second, since it seems unfair for someone that has done something wrong a long time ago, to have to pay the consequences for it in a different context. With that said, each tier could have its own reasonable cool down time (enough to dissuade, enough to be fair).
  3. “Trolling” & “Harassment”: not an easy topic, but we’ll try to get some concrete examples to use as guidelines.
  4. Banning times for each tier: there are specific behaviors that justify an immediate perma-ban, but for others we could consider other periods of time (e.g. 1 year), depending on the broken rule.
  5. Private messaging and social media: they’re are not explicited because we didn’t find a solution for that so far. Some people could say that’s outside the scope, some people would say the opposite. Monitoring social media is definitely something that we won’t do.
  6. Enforcement can’t be overruled by the DAO: It’s explicit at the bottom of the document “In situations where a moderator is absent or the community deems a timeout necessary, a community enforcement mechanism ‘Modinator’ may be used. However, it is important to note that Modinator actions cannot supersede the decisions made by a moderator to time-out or ban a user due to inappropriate behavior.”