[DAO:9e7556f] Banning Individuals = Invalid Governance Question

Governance
1

by 0xaca8fbbdddfce169114f344d8ee739bde665f4f4 (Seanny)

Following an earlier poll, centered around the banning of an individual from our community, this poll is aimed at enshrining the values of free speech, and anti-censorship ideals in DCL.

This poll is simple: do you ever want to see the governance framework be used (and devolved) into a bickering spree on “who” should be “banned”?

IMPORTANT: this doesn’t mean people cannot be banned; it simply means that banning individuals will be seen as outside the scope of DAO Governance Decisions

Points:
-> This poll does not cover discord management or moderation
-> This poll does not cover forum management or moderation
-> This poll has no direct implications, in any state or form, on the role of the foundation, core units, or any squads related to the management, facilitation, or growth of the platform/community, nor on their role and responsibilities.

-> This poll aims to set a precedent rooted in the ideals and values of free speech and decentralized governance
-> This poll aims to clarify the DAOs role in relation to moderation and member-management
-> This poll aims to solidify the governance framework’s position as a macro-oriented vehicle in laying out roadmaps, frameworks and collective visions.
-> This poll aims to put to rest any bickering related to banning person X, Y or Z, at least, through the governance platform.

Why do I feel this is important?
As I outlined in the following post [[DAO:0c78d2f] Permanently ban jar0d - #41 by Seanny] I strongly feel that censorship, of any kind, has no place in Decentraland, and is counter-intuitive to the ideals of decentralised governance, and to the founding principles of a DAO.

This proposal aims to separate the DAO’s governance framework and overall governance competencies, from the active moderation roles required to keep the community clean from bots, scammers, phishers, spammers, and occasionally, trolls.

This proposal aims to set a foundation for further discussions to be had on the nature of moderation in Decentraland, and which roles and responsibilities should address this issue.

This poll also aims to act as a guiding sentiment on the values of censorship and freedom of speech in DCL; aimed at collectively enshrining a protective measure within our governance framework of which values we aim to collectively protect.

Make no reference in our guidelines or precedent-setting in relation to our stance on individual banning.

No reference to banning; ambiguity.

  • Enshrine Value; banning not a DAO competence.
  • No reference to banning; ambiguity on banning.
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

I agree that there should not be proposals to ban individuals, banning an individual does not solve the issue.

We do need a set of rules to follow to keep areas like the discord channel free from pettiness and arguments. Perhaps the solution of this will be to establish some rules that will stop the behaviours that are degrading the community which will guide everyone into a more correct line of discourse without the need to ban individuals.

3

I have a question

Assume that I am

  1. A pedophile, here targeting and grooming kids who have now entered the space. The community is now aware and evidence is gathered, but I am still openly committing the act.

  2. A hateful racist/grifter, I go to every event and shout slurs at everyone, calling people hurtful words.

  3. I am a terror organisation, and I’m attempting to use the platform for recruitment as well as a base for real world operations.

  4. A misinformation spreader. I create a space for fake news and for supporters to gather, recruit and discuss about such events.

How would you(the community) deal with me in every scenario?

I would like to know the avenues available to the platform/community should such cases appear, because they will, if we intend to become a mainstream platform.

2 Likes
5

I told people that it was non-binding as the DAO Committee cannot enact those proposals, I was told “prove it, it’s not in the docs”…

6

I finally figured out the relationship between you and bird. :laughing:

7

I’m curious how you can take stance to censure DAO voting rights against proposals for banning bad actors, while simultaneously being against censorship of any kind in Decentraland. Allowing the community to vote on proposals is the very essence of decentralization, and the very purpose of a DAO. I find it counterintuitive for you to claim to be both against censorship while trying to censure votes, and being pro-decentralization while trying to minimize decentralization.

1 Like
8

If the decision of what is binding and non-binding is made by select key individuals, then its certainly not a decentralized process. Decision-makers making policy on what to enforce/not enforce based on their own personal interpretation of governance is the exact definition of centralization.

2 Likes
9

DAO is still a relatively new experiment (concept) & there is nothing wrong with learning on the (fly) job :grinning:

10

It’s not “made” by key individuals, it’s a simple question you need to ask: “Can that be done by all DAO Committee members?”
DAO Committee members don’t have ban permissions on the DAO Discord, they don’t have mod permissions on the forum and don’t have access to the twitter account, so they cannot enact a ban proposal.

11

Yeah so its centralized. Thats the point I was making. If there’s only one person with authority to enforce the result of a proposal, and that person can decide for themselves whether or not to enforce it (based on their opinion of what is binding/nonbinding), then its not a decentralized process.

To decentralize it, we not only should allow such proposals, but there should be enough individuals with the authority to enforce them that if one person with authority decides not to, others can.

I’m not for or against centralization/decentralization. I’m just calling it for what it is. This poll is aiming to make an already centralized process even more centralized (for better or for worse).

1 Like
12

This isn’t a factually accurate description of the situation.

13

What are you on about?

Invalid Questions are a key part of our decision-making framework, and collectivelt understanding (and documenting) how they should be categorized allows us to concentrate decisions related to the competence and ability of the DAO. Without precedents and guiding principles, we might as well be voting if we should send a doge to Mars.

Agreed! This is why we cannot, and should not, bar people from voting.

In no way did I ever suggest any vote should be censored. On the contrary, the vote to ban any actor from voting in the DAO is the only degree of censorship I see here.

What I feel you’re trying to say is that this proposal is censoring ‘proposals’, which, is inaccurate. This proposal aims to outline the fact that censoring any parties from participating and voting in our system is beyond the scope/application of a governance vote, and makes a mockery of the governance framework (whilst simultaneously being counter-intuitive to the values we uphold).

I think we actually agree (in principle at least) far more than we disagree.

14

Pass on the evidence to local authorities. Empower the public with the context they need to protect themselves against the actor. Good luck managing to ban his IP/Identity in a tangible manner.

Property owners can mute/kick IDs. Good luck trying to ban someone who just uses a VPN and logs in with fake MetaMask accounts. Also, good luck to that individual to actually make any headway in their cause once the community gets tired of him.

That organization will automatically fail at its actions due to the nature of our catalyst-servers and how our worlds are built up. If they’re using Genesis proper as a base for real-world operations, they would be quite uninformed about DCL’s architecture and would have counter-terrorist squads up their ass faster than you might think.

We are in no position to regulate misinformation/fake news, just like almost any other social media platform on the internet, and I am in no position to state which approach would be best; especially when our platform itself is so fragmented when it comes to player-to-player communication.

15

Banning Individuals = Invalid Governance Question

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Enshrine value; banning not a dao competence. 77% 4,963,407 VP (73 votes)
  • No reference to banning; ambiguity on banning. 1% 7 VP (4 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 22% 1,472,751 VP (11 votes)
16

Banning Individuals = Invalid Governance Question

This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)