it has been a while since ive seen a Name Ban prop, if you can look at other names that have been banned you’ll see how they definitely meet the criteria for banning them. As the owner of names the owner is free to use it how they want whether its on their avatar, land parcel, etc. DCL DAO doesnt vote on its own proposals, you can see and confirm this on snapshots. Blockchain will tell you who minted it.
So are we proposing to ban all names that can or may cause confusion to users? Because we have a lot of those, artists names whether still alive or passed, brands, positions…
This looks like solely a ban on the name for owning it or being witty enough to mint it before the proposer of this prop or any of the yes votes.
after seeing all the discussion here adding a verified mark is probably the best solution, but is this something we can enact as a DAO? I’m not sure we have any guarantee of feature requests being completed and as someone said above banning the name or offering to purchase the name are the only two options the DAO has right now to prevent use. I am indifferent on if we should exercise this right though after hearing the community’s opinion, but also concerned on our power to enact alternative solutions.
thank you also @nwiz for clearing up you are the owner and your intention for the name. I appreciate that you don’t have a malicious intent and agree it probably isn’t fair to you to have the name banned, however I do think the issue of identity is an important one in our community. my intention with this proposal was not with malintent either, but to use the powers we do have now to protect the public from being mislead. honestly when I made the proposal I was unsure which way I would vote on this issue and probably am more so after hearing the community’s thoughts, but I will be refraining from voting completely to allow the community to decide. if anything I hope the discussion this has created will be valuable in itself around what is considered censorship in Decentraland vs protection of intellectual property.
thank you for your reply, so lets try that route first though, a verified check mark next to official DAO members name should not be that hard to implement and would stop the need of actually taking an extreme action like banning/censoring an NFT
Adding a verified mark as suggested helps relieve confusion for those who won’t take a few steps further in their research when looking at voters of DAO Props. It may be a great idea for it.
I still think, confusion as to who owns the name is not grounds for banning it in the first place.
You don’t ban users names unless they break the ToC, if you want to submit a DAO vote to change ToC is fine, but targeting a specific user and banning their name due to a philosophical difference is IMO targeted and opens up a precedence for some pretty crappy behavior from whoever has a majority vote.
The blockchain exists for a reason, visiting the address and seeing the other names would make it clear its an individual.
DCL was founded on the rights individual freedom, the user minted the name fairly and retains the rights. These are principles not only of DCL but the blockchain itself, and is the reason we waste so much time and energy trying to do things in a more computationally expensive but self sovereign way.
If the user was using a name to actively scam people, we would have a case that it may be ethical to ban the name, but currently the idea that it may be confusing is not enough to ban a users name and quite frankly should not be considered a legitimate DAO vote even if it succeeds.
Banning a name that does not violate the Terms & Conditions is censorship. Banning names based on arbitrary grounds of “confusion” is also censorship. There’s no way to spin that. It’s censorship.
If the issue is a user actively misleading others, or falsely representing the Foundation (not the case here) - that is something entirely different, and has nothing to do with a name. It has to do with a specific user’s activity, and action should be judged on that activity. Any penalty or potential bans that come in response to active spoofing or willful misrepresentation should be applied to the user’s public ETH address. It has nothing to do with the name they are using.
This DAO vote is on a specific issue - does “DCLDAO” violate the T&C. Any conversation around new features to show verified status in DCL (ala Blue Checkmark) is beyond the scope of this vote, and only a distraction.
Honestly DCL has much more important issues than trying to ban a good name rightfully owned by an active member of this community. Vote NO, this is ridiculous.
This is a UI/UX issue and has nothing to do with NWIZ’s name.
The name is not against the rules; voting to ban it is meritless.
For the record, I loathe the name-hoarding culture and would love nothing more than to have a valid way to be a petty pain in NWIZ’s ass, but this isn’t it.
Fix the way the website displays the information, and prioritize education as @szjanko called out.
This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time. If this is the case we should also ban the names Decentraland & MANA because DCL also doesn’t own these two names.
Please tell me in which category DCLDAO name fits.
1- Racist/Racial
2- Abusive/Rude
3- Intimidating/Violent
4- Sexist/Targeted
As you can see this name does not belong to any of the above categories. I disapprove how HPrivakos as part of the team/foundation voting NO on many community proposals. This has to be addressed. We talk about the core foundation being decentralised yet we see reminiscence of centralisation via the team members.
I like the idea! Official DAO members get a check mark automatically (for free), and community members that want to “verify” their account can pay the DAO for that verification process. Brings in another income for the DAO and none of it is required, people would still be able to participate without being “officially verified”
I have voted yes for many previous name bans. These names in question were totally racist some specifically targeted various religions/races & ethnic groups. My stance on such names will always the same. For me community is everything and without it this platform can’t exist.
This is a slippery slope. Is the name DCLDAO offensive or harmful in nature as these are the requirements for suggesting a name ban?
Do you all plan on then voting for fair compensation for the owner in the event that this does pass?
Do you then pursue names like Decentraland, DCL, DAODCL etc. Where does that end?
Do users now come in and request name bans on any name that they believe they have a bigger claim to?
I believe this is the incorrect approach. If DCL is concerned about these names in the hands of community members then DCL should secure them as any other entity would be expected to do.
Agreed 1000%. In the event that this passes how is DCL any different than Instagram who attempted to strong arm the username “meta” from an active user after they rebranded. In my opinion this would actually be worse because the name was rightfully purchased and doesn’t even meet the criteria for a name ban.
the community doesn’t exist without fair dialogue, community doesn’t exist with assumptions and judgment. So I am voting YES, because censorship comes in many forms. Being non-inclusive is censorship, not letting everyone have an equal voice or vote is censorship, so all this high horse talk is funny. I am voting YES because we might as well keep censoring all the way
