[DAO:8ae0bf3] Mark District X as 'stolen'

You are actively in business with RobL. You’ve asked the question “what happens to my rental agreement if this land is marked stolen?”

Ser, we have provided ample evidence as to why we believe RobL committed fraud to acquire the land fraudulently, I am sorry if you are incapable of reading it.

RobL made promises to the contributors in order to be named the district leader, he has subsequently banned and bullied anyone who attempted to hold him accountable.

Ser, it’s a simple yes or no question. Were the lands obtained or transferred to Rob was done through an illegal or unlawful manner? Yes. Or no?

Given that fraud is unlawful. Yes.

So the lands were transferred via fraudulent means. Is that what you are saying?

I am unclear on why you think you have found a loophole in the semantics of language worth pursuing.

You asked if the land was obtained through an illegal and unlawful manner. now that you don’t like the answer to that question you want to narrow it down further.

You can keep moving the goalpost but it doesn’t make a better case for your positon.

so that’s not true isn’t it. Lands were transferred legally and contracts are there. so where was the fraudulent part?

The part where Rob didn’t make good on his commitments and only made the promises fraudulently to be given the assets in question.

So, the fraudulent part is AFTER obtaining the lands legally and lawfully? Yes or No?


If you make promises to get something and then go out of your way to not deliver on your promise, that is fraud.

that doesnt make sense. Commitment has to be fulfilled upon AFTER a legal contract is signed. Only then he should be fulfilling the obligations mentioned in the contract. So i am asking you again, was the obtaining/transferring of the lands conducted legally?

I’ve watched this be explained to you by multiple people many times. It is clear you refuse to engage in good faith.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

You seemed to be the one not understanding the question and failing to distinguish between the legal of the obtaining of the lands and the contractual obligations he needs to fulfil after the contract. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the fact that the lands were obtained/transferred legally but acknowledged that he didnt fulfil the obligations in the contract and calling it fraud. If the contract is, fraudulent in the first place, then why are you sharing screenshots of the contract that was already, in your words, fraudulent? it doesnt make sense.

Hi all - Please see the original verbiage attached when users contributed land to districts at the land terraform event:

It clearly states: ‘Select the total amount of LAND you would like to have on the district’ - how can we in good faith argue that this land does not belong to the contributors, when they were under that exact impression at the point of sale?

1 Like

I think looking at these very simple facts, it is clear the land is STOLEN:

1.) The verbiage used when contributors sent mana and entered a purchase agreement via a signed signature on chain clearly gave contributors the impression they would own land within the district - if this is not the case, they should be refunded, misleading customers at point of sale is illegal in the majority of the world and the purchase should be reverted.

2.) Neither DCL nor other users, can sign away the rights of other land owners/contributors, this is a clear founding principle of DCL and it has been broken when Rob took the land and signed away the contributors rights - how can you sign away someone else’s property?

Unless the initial purchase agreement is invalid (in which case the users should be returned their mana for a failed purchase), we clearly have a case of stolen property here.

Voting yes here. But I’ll vote yes on the next stage (Governance Proposal), only if the word “Stolen” is changed to something more neutral, like “Disputed”.

Its the job of a court to determine if the lands were in fact acquired in an unlawful way or for an unlawful purpose, not ours.

All this remembers me of the current Roots of Pacha thing. The game was removed from Steam by Valve, since a disagreement between developer and distributor. Vale is neutral, but it took action.

In the same way here the Foundation and DAO can be neutral and take action at the same time.

1 Like

Mark District X as ‘stolen’

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 37% 3,491,826 VP (59 votes)
  • No 52% 4,714,943 VP (29 votes)
  • Abstain 11% 1,035,500 VP (7 votes)