I can agree with you and @InJesterr about the wrong use of the “stolen” word as it’s was not in definition stolen. But from what i saw on several proposal about district X, the actual use of it is definitely against the rules that were established when the estate was sent to this group of custodian (and that i think Rob agreed as he was a member of that group when the estate was sent). So even if he received it beside the fact its against the initial rules, he continue to play against these same rules and worse because he is the only who govern this estate.
So maybe that using a word like “hijacked” or else could suits more with the situation as the actual use of it is against the initial rules of the “contract” made for that estate.
Again i don’t think i do have all infos so i"m really free to listen every point of view. And i can also understand people that have some actual “interest” to keep things like this… But from what i see you are thinking on a too short vision. You are actually voting yes because of a 1 year contract that is benefits to you. But from what i see this situation can have repercusions for years AND affect you as some points of the future for Decentraland. I still can’t understand actually keeping a No, because if it was me that have interest there even for a year, i’ll be able to understand how this thing can mess around.
Again, please explain me if i’m wrong because lacks of infos
The main intent and crux of this proposal is to label DX as stolen. Unless the proposer is planning to change the label here, I am afraid that we are accusing Rob of obtaining something through illegal means and methods even though it was transferred legally with binding contracts. I can’t support this proposal.
While the intention is justified, the use of the word and the intend to act on it based on what Rob has been accused of still does not fall into the category of ‘theft’.
I’m not voting No because of my 1 year contract, I’m voting No because voting yes would be defamation, since he didn’t take those parcels by force or without permission therefore its not stolen. Hijacked isn’t a term he did because he was selected to be a custodian.
also the one of the reasons why I vote No is even if this proposal passes I hope you guys realize that the DAO comittee cant fulfill enacting it, since its nothing it has to do with smartcontracts and is simply a front end visual hard coded label in the hopes that the foundation will implement it? its a waste of effort.
over here you can see what the DAO comittee is able to pass and what not. Its almost like your searchbar it passed but its nowhere its only a statement that we hope that it will be changed.
I would like to see a better proposal then this because if you do something you got to do it right, this will not benefit the 400 contributors with anything only false hope, maybe reqeust a grant to give those people each a DCL eth name, then they get 4 parcels each, after that they will be able to be build in Decentraland, maybe it wont be a parcel in the main world but atleast they will get something and 100 vp with it.
I would be better if the dao wasn’t littered with so many people making bad faith, and uneducated, arguments in defense of what are clearly morally unacceptable actions.
I understand better, thanks for explanations @InJesterr
What always feels me that the District X is still "Stolen/Hijacked/ any other words similars (my english vocabulary isn’t large enough to find words that suits better) is that :
From what i understood, he was selected to be ONE of the custodians, not the one who own the whole District and for sure, definitely not for personal use / benefits (correct me if i’m wrong).
Also from what i saw, this group of custodians were not Owners of the District, just in charge of it, as a work.
So even if it is the leader that left and sent to Rob, there is a rule in that case and this rules wasn’t respected. (Rules that Rob agreed as all of the concerned custodians). And actually this District don’t seems to be used in the interest of the DAO/Fundation.
I agree that the first person who broke the rules was the person who sent the entire district to Rob and to take an exemple “almost near” yours :
If i steal money in a bank, then send the money bag to you. Does that mean that you can keep the money as you are not the thief? I bet that the bank and authority will not agree with that as the DAO/Fundation is in right to not agree with that. (again correct me if i’m wrong). Because yes, in that case the person who sent the district to Rob is a thief, as he gave someone else, a things that he don’t own. So to me the Stolen term is still right for the district X.
But even with all what i’m saying (i have some other questions and other things to say/clarify about all of this). In the end you are Right @InJesterr :
We can’t do anything even if the proposal passes. AND IT IS A PROBLEM !! I’ll still think that this land is stolen as it had to be owned by the DAO/Fundation, and that the actual owner broke the rules made for that district and still do. Also the other problem is that he is now a person with 4M VP that are not deserved
and that use these VP to block other proposals
I’m glad to havn’t saw Rob voted yet till i’m back on DCL but i’m worrying about how this not deserved VP could affect the democratic system of the DAO.
As always explain me if i’m wrong!
I’m not doing like a campaign against him or against ppl that support him or else, i’m just carrying about DCL.
Hey thanks for your reply you made some valid points and I think there is a slight fact that make me disagree with you, back in 2018 I guess when district where given out, it went through some type of auction and the previous owner obtained the district in that way so in this case he is not a thief for getting the district through an auction he is clearly irresponsible for sending it to someone else but not a thief it was a mistake from the people in charge back then to give those district as nfts parcels out to people who won it through the auction but that also means that its the same case for every district so why dont we flag all districts as stolen then?
If the initial owner did steal your analogy would be right.
I love to see people bring their concerns about decentraland and I know you have no bad intentions and try to the right thing so am I
Oh thanks for bringing me this info ! I was not aware of this that makes things so complicated
I begin to understand why this subject is constantly coming back and don’t seems to go further.
Its a really complex situation indeed alot of unprofessional work which I can understand aswell because back then no one knew that these responsibilities would weigh this much, we are talking about 5 years maybe back when ppl barely knew what decentraland was and that it would become so big, I dont think the foundation back then knew aswell. The only thing I can think of is that people attending at these auction were not even getting land back then since the game wasn’t developed at that time.
Yeah when I heard about these I also was like wow yh its not something me and you can fix, i know somethings are unjust and there needs to be done alot but i am clueless on this topic
No, it doesn’t. It was not obtained through theft. You are accusing him of doing things after he had acquired legally. That doesn’t change the fact that it was obtained legally and not through theft.
I disagree with you having this habit of accusing people of engaging in bad faith when their opinions are not on your side. People have different thoughts and i clearly mention why i voted no… to call comments like mine bad faith or uneducated shows you are unable to engage in healthy discussion with people with differing opinions.
You are failing to understand the timeline of events and what is being said to you. RobL intentionally deceived people in order to be named District Leader. He put forward a proposal for how he would run the district to gain support and as soon as he was given ownership of the land he began to systematically silence contributors.
I do not accuse you of engaging in bad faith because we have different opinions. I accuse you of acting in bad faith because you argued with me for months about this issue before admitting you had a financial incentive to want to believe RobL and DistrictX are innocent.
I call Injester’s opinion "uneductated’ because despite his desire to jump into this conversation at every available chance, once again a desire motivated by his financial benefit from working with RobL, because I, and others, have written lots of information on the subject and it is clear based on injester’s continued attempts to make the same already disproven arguments that he has put no effort into forming an educated opinion on the topic and is instead just attempting to argue from a position of ignorance.
ignorance
ĭg′nər-əns
noun
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
What is the financial incentive that i have with Rob? Please explain. I have disclosed that I paid rent to have projects hosted on DX. Are these what you called financial incentives?
A financial incentive is defined as: a monetary benefit offered … to encourage behaviour or actions which otherwise would not take place. A financial incentive motivates actions which otherwise might not occur without the monetary benefit.”
Going by this definition, what is the financial benefit that i had received from Rob? Because if you are saying that i admitted to have a financial incentive with/from Rob, then this is an accusation and it is a wrong one.
Also, since you said I failed to understand the timeline of events, let me ask a basic question. The crux of the proposal is to mark DX as stolen. Were the lands obtained or transferred to Rob was done through an illegal or unlawful manner?
Yes, you did this after going on the better part of multiple months of arguing about the topic as if you had no incentive.
Your financial incentive is that you paid for a year of rent in advance and you are concerned what will happen to that agreement in the event the land is marked stolen, this isn’t a particularly complicated concept to understand.
@MetaRyuk Please please read the thousands of words I’ve already written on the subject, or at the very least read the 2.1.1 plan RobL presented as the basis for his being named the district Lead. There is no sense in wasting further time repeatedly answering you and injester’s questions, they’ve already been answered multiple times.
That’s not a financial incentive. Whether or not i disclosed it before, during or after the discussion is not relevant. By definition, it is not a financial incentive.
I asked a simple question, were the lands obtained or transferred to Rob was done through an illegal or unlawful manner? Yes. Or no?
