[DAO:9c193de] Should Decentraland Create Clear Rules for Platform-Wide Bans?

Governance
1

by 0x6723dcb07f3ca735223cd1c0acfa62dd994a1bb4 (ToxicWaifu)

Summary

Decentraland currently lacks a clear and transparent framework for platform-wide bans.

It is often unclear what behavior justifies a platform-wide ban, who makes the decision, what evidence is used, how long a ban lasts, what exactly is restricted, and whether there is a review or appeal process.

There are also questions about the effectiveness of the current system. In some cases, banned users have been able to return using new accounts, raising questions about what a platform-wide ban actually achieves and how ban evasion should be handled.

At the same time, Decentraland already has different levels of moderation available.

Individual users can block other users, and owners or operators of spaces can restrict access to the areas they control.

This makes it important to clearly distinguish between:

  • personal moderation, such as one user blocking another;
  • space-level restrictions, such as removing or banning someone from specific LAND, Worlds, events or official Foundation-operated spaces; and
  • platform-wide bans, which restrict a user at a much broader level.

A platform-wide ban is therefore not the only available moderation option and should be clearly defined as a separate and significantly more serious measure.

This discussion was prompted by the case of Jar0d, but the purpose of this proposal is broader. The goal is to establish clear, consistent and transparent rules for future moderation decisions.

Proposal

Should the Decentraland DAO develop a governance framework that:

  • defines when a platform-wide ban is justified;
  • distinguishes personal blocking, space-level restrictions and platform-wide bans;
  • clarifies when restrictions should apply only to specific LAND, Worlds, events or Foundation-operated spaces;
  • defines what a platform-wide ban actually restricts and how it is enforced;
  • requires clear reasons, criteria and documentation;
  • includes a transparent review and appeal process;
  • defines how ban evasion should be handled;
  • evaluates whether current enforcement is effective and proportionate;
  • clarifies the responsibilities of the DAO, Foundation, moderators, users, LAND owners and World owners; and
  • reviews existing platform-wide bans under the same framework?

A successful vote would only move the idea to the next proposal stage. It would not immediately ban or unban anyone or automatically change the current moderation system.

The next stage would need to determine the exact scope of each level of moderation, when escalation to a platform-wide ban is justified, who has the authority to issue and enforce such a ban, what evidence is required, how ban evasion should be handled, how appeals and reviews would work, and how these decisions interact with the autonomy of users, LAND owners, World owners and the responsibilities of the Decentraland Foundation and the DAO.

This affects the whole Decentraland community. Please use this poll to share your perspective and help shape the discussion.

  • Yes! Develop a clear framework
  • No! Keep the current system
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

I think this is very necessary. I don’t like the fact that Foundation Ban on Jar0d prevents him from attending my events. I think Foundation bans should only be relevant on foundation land. Especially since this is supposed to be decentralized. Give me the power to make my own decisions regarding who can and can’t be on my land.

3 Likes
3

Is Jarod still banned? Its been over a year.

3 Likes
4

In my view, this discussion is long overdue. It’s not an easy or pleasant topic but it is an important one.

I joined Decentraland back when “Owned by its users” was a central message of the platform. Because of that, I believe the community should be meaningfully involved in decisions as serious as platform-wide bans.

This topic has already been discussed many times across the community and the draft of this was also shared publicly before being published (for example at WTF DCL on August 4 and during the CBD Community Space on August 8). Those conversations made one thing very clear: there are many different perspectives, concerns and ideas around this topic. I really hope those different views are reflected here in the comments as well, so please share your thoughts!

For me, this proposal is not about arguing for or against one specific ban. It is about creating a space where we can discuss this openly and hopefully work together toward a transparent, consistent and fair framework that the community can stand behind.

3 Likes
5

We now have the ability to ban people from individual properties. Every landowner can decide who is welcome on their land — and the Foundation has that same right.

We need to be clear about what can get someone removed. If they cause trouble at a venue, that venue can ban them. They can still go everywhere else.

A worldwide ban should almost never be needed. Each owner can keep their own house in order, there is no reason to shut someone out of the whole world.

That is why this matters. we need this.

3 Likes
6

Yes. Bitcoin’s biggest utility is is that it is impossible to de-bank anyone. DecentraLand is not a misspelling of MonarchyLand .

3 Likes
7

The Foundation should probably only be able to ban people from its own lands.

3 Likes
9

I initially thought (without actually joining the convo, it happens when im asleep) that the discussion around bans came up because of Artista. But now that jar0d’s case is also in the limelight, we should properly standardise where bans apply.

This is my stand:

Most bans should only apply on owner specific lands. Foundation bans apply for Foundation LAND, same for RGL, same for private LAND owners.

Examples:

  1. Repeatedly disrupting an event or scene
  2. Harassing other visitors in that particular space
  3. Spamming voice/text chat
  4. Griefing or intentionally interfering with gameplay
  5. Trolling or provoking users
  6. Ignoring the scene’s stated rules
  7. Repeatedly advertising of anything that isn’t related to the scene/organisation.
  8. Creating inappropriate content within someone’s scene
  9. Disrupting an event after being warned
  10. Personal disputes between users that don’t create a broader platform threat

All these are at the owners’ discretion.

To require a platform ban, it should be something that goes through a DAO vote, similar to how we ban names. The pursuant should bring about strong evidence of trangression that requires said ban.

Examples:

Security / technical attacks
Exploiting a vulnerability to compromise other users
Malware distribution
Credential theft
Deliberately attacking Decentraland infrastructure
Coordinated technical attacks against users
Systematic fraud
Large-scale scams targeting Decentraland users
Impersonation campaigns designed to steal assets
Systematic phishing
Operating fraudulent infrastructure throughout Decentraland
Severe, persistent abuse
Coordinated campaigns of serious harassment against multiple users
Threats of serious physical harm
Doxxing or malicious distribution of highly sensitive personal information
Repeated severe abuse after multiple sanctions

Ban circumvention
Creating large numbers of accounts/wallets specifically to evade a platform-wide sanction
Coordinated attempts to circumvent enforcement mechanisms

Foundation can also share a public list of addresses with names that are banned so that private owners can decide if they want to add the whole list to their scenes or omit certain individuals.

3 Likes
10

I think the useful principle is simple: authority should sit at the lowest level capable of handling the problem.

  • Users decide whom they block.

  • LAND and World owners decide who enters their spaces.

  • The Foundation handles the extremely rare cases that cross spaces, threaten users broadly, or require immediate action.

  • The community can discuss the principles. Individual bans should never become VP contests where one whale decides someone’s fate.

Jarod can already return under a new account. What people want restored is the Jarod persona, with its name, history, reputation, and behavior attached. This is not really about access. It is about returning as the same character and reversing what the ban represented.

If a Foundation ban prevents someone from entering LAND or Worlds whose owners welcome them, that sounds primarily like a bug or feature request. Give owners proper access controls and finish the job there.

Some cases will still require a platform-wide response. We saw people screaming racist slurs in Genesis Plaza in 2021. Nobody is going to open a five-day DAO poll while everyone waits for a whale to find his Ledger, remember where he hid the seed phrase, connect the cold wallet, and decide whether the screaming can continue.

The Foundation needs to act quickly in those situations. It should document the reason and provide an appeal route afterward.

Turning individual bans into DAO votes solves very little. Most active users have almost no VP. We could all hold hands, sing Kumbaya, vote together, and still be outweighed by one person making three clicks from a hardware wallet.

So yes, this is a brilliant community-building discussion. It helps us think through freedom, property rights, identity, and platform safety. The practical outcome should remain small: local owner control, rare Foundation intervention, basic appeals, and no DAO votes on individual people.

If the immediate objective is to bring Jarod back, collect $8, buy him “JarodX,” and send him to the party. If the objective is to define the principle, this is the principle I would support.

2 Likes
11

Read again @swissverse, you have a habit of skimming through without capturing important information

Not every ban requires a DAO vote.

An individual using racial slurs in Genesis Plaza can be banned by Foundation itself because its on their turf.

Something as severe as a platform ban shouldn’t happen too often, but when it does, it requires the consensus of a community versus an opaque, unilateral decision by Foundation. Jar0d’s case, I believe, was that, which is heavy handed and unilateral. That is the point.

2 Likes
12

From what I understand, there are no rules yet. It’s a request to develop them.

So what exactly are you telling me to read more carefully? Your preferred outcome? Your own version of the future rules?

I think the skimming issue might be on your end.

2 Likes
13

What you described here is actually something @Roustan and I have also been brainstorming about.

Since scene- and World-level bans already exist, this could potentially be taken a step further and integrated into the Creator Hub, allowing owners to decide whether they want to apply that list to their own spaces, for example through a simple opt-in toggle, while still being able to make exceptions.

The same principle could potentially be extended to individual users. Decentraland already supports user-level muting, so this could be developed further into a personal filter: users could decide whether they want to interact with, or potentially even see, addresses on such a list in-world, somewhat similar to an NSFW filter.

I’m not a developer, so I can’t say how technically feasible this would be. I’d be very happy for someone with a better technical understanding to correct or expand on this.

But leaving the technical side aside for a moment:

To me, this would better reflect Decentraland’s decentralized nature: the Foundation can moderate the spaces it is responsible for, while also giving scene and World owners, as well as individual users, the tools to make their own moderation choices.

It also creates more proportional options between doing nothing and banning someone across the entire platform. I think there are many approaches like this that could be more transparent, effective and aligned with Decentraland than the current system.

Regarding the idea that someone who is platform-wide banned can simply create a new account: That’s already happening with Artista. Artista is platform-wide banned, but keeps returning with new accounts, (which are then banned as well).

So if Jarod simply comes back as “JarodX,” there is a very real possibility that this account would also be banned. The question is therefore not only whether someone can technically create another wallet and return, but more this importsnt point by @swissverse here:

This brings us to a much bigger topic: digital identity.

When is it appropriate to effectively remove someone’s access to an identity they have built over years and who should have the authority to make that decision?

The Decentraland Docs state:

“Everything in Decentraland is built and owned by the people who show up: the parcels, the scenes, the avatars, and the experiences. The infrastructure is decentralized, so no single company can take away your space, your identity, or what you’ve built.”

But in Jarod’s case, in practice, someone did take away his identity and what he had built around it.

In Artista’s case, we see the opposite problem: he can keep creating new accounts, turning enforcement into a race between account creation and account bans.

To me, both cases showcase the issues of the current system . Platform-wide bans are an extremely far-reaching measure, yet they can either deeply affect someone’s digital identity or be relatively easy to circumvent.

@jar0d was kind enough to let his case serve as a starting point for this discussion and I really appreciate that. But ultimately, this is about creating a better system for everyone. That is why we should define when such a ban is actually justified, who should have the authority to issue it and whether more targeted moderation tools would often be the better solution and about providing them.

3 Likes
14

I actually like reading your communication style. It’s so calm and neutral. What a relief. Everyone is trying so hard to be clever and it gets boring to read. This is different. I might add something in a few days again.

2 Likes
15

We have far more serious issues than bringing back someone who has threatened to kill everyone. With only ~30 DAU’s our focus should be growth, new users, and the future not toxic drama.

1 Like
16

Jar0d’s case wasn’t just an example of heavy-handed or unilateral action, it involved years off repeated, ongoing harassment, threats to kill co-founders, and impersonating Yemel (now replaced by Esteban)

Treating it as merely a governance dispute misses the severity of the conduct.

1 Like
17

This issue is not Jar0d, or your opinion of him, it’s that foundation prevents users like him from joining my land and events. Just because you’ve written him off, doesn’t mean I have. Foundation certainly can and should be able to ban whoever they like, just not platform wide. I want control of my land.

1 Like
18

This is a preemptive effort for the potential that we develop more than 30 DAU. If that were to happen, there would be far more Jar0d’s with far worse behavior on the platform. This is just prepping for clarity.

1 Like
19

The Foundation has every right to terminate its relationship with someone and ban them from the platform if their conduct violates its rules. Given the impersonation of Yemel JardĂ­ and public threats against Esteban, his family, Foundation and DAO members, and other users, I understand why the Foundation took action.

What I don’t understand is your position that Jar0d should have unrestricted access to the rest of the platform. He can potentially participate under another username or persona where LAND owners allow it. If that is already happening, why is restoring the specific “Jar0d” username so important?

If we allow this to happen, it could set a dangerous precedent. Other bad actors may believe they can engage in similar behaviour and simply return later without meaningful consequences. We should be setting a clear standard for the future, not encouraging behaviour that could harm the community, brand or the platform.

I would really like to hear @esteban thoughts, since he is one of the victims and is now the acting Foundation Executive Director. I’m pretty certain that his position and vote will be very important in this matter.

1 Like
20

I agree that growth should be a priority! But I don’t see this discussion as separate from growth. In my opinion, the bigger Decentraland gets, the more important it becomes to have clear rules around moderation, bans and authority. With a small user base, these issues are still manageable. At 10x, 100x or 1000x the scale, they won’t be. So I see defining these boundaries now as preparation for sustainable growth, not as distraction from it.

1 Like
21

Read my comment above. I don’t have a position of Jar0d have unrestricted access. Not sure where you got that idea. Also, @esteban commented about Jar0d in the recent AMA and had kind things to say because they’ve been chatting. I’m sure he’ll chime in at some point. perhaps during the final proposal.

1 Like