by 0xd5e9ef1cedad0d135d543d286a2c190b16cbb89e (DougNFTWorld)
This poll relates to the proposal of a new Code of Ethics:
Of particular importance, is the following stance for spamming and trolling as a “low tier offense” which allows this behavior every 1 - 24 hours by the same individuals.
As quoted from the Code of Ethics:
“Tier 1 - Low tier offense (Chat spamming, trolling, spreading FUD, mocking and/or ignoring indications from the staff members): Minor offenses such as these will lead to being muted for at least 1 hour and could be escalated to 24 hours if the user’s negative behavior is persistent. (does not count as a strike in the user’s record).”
The purpose of this poll is to gauge whether a small strike shall be counted toward these offenses in order to limit this behavior, rather than delay it.
Who specifically determines if it is FUD or a valid question? I know there are questions asked sometimes by people that are legitimate questions or concerns and the person questioned feels they are attacks because of other circumstances. It seems to me that we wired to get on the defensive side when any question that has any kind of negative aspect to it. I am also curious about this “mocking” cause if you ask me there is constant mocking even if not spoken whether with memes, gifs and even lately name changes. So if we do this then how would it count with those things? For every meme/gif or in the case of a mocking name every post be a count against them? If this were to past I can think of many people that will have strikes against them quite quickly. Also how strict to we get when we are in a decentralized community. Freedom of expression/Freedom of speech do we follow what has been written IRL or do we create our own rules? I think that if a set of rules are voted on in a decentralized world and passed then there can no longer be the excuse of well we are decentralized that shouldn’t be that way. It may be about freedom and transparency but it is also about what the people choose and how they vote for a proposal. Thank you.
The Code of Ethics, and the moderators - as voted on by the community.
Yes, that’s the point.
According to the Code of Ethics and rules just like any other discord and forum. Its not a new concept.
Its not a matter of all or nothing. No one said we cant have decentralization within a safe and respectful environment. How many people are not voicing their opinions due to the toxicity? How many people are being silenced by toxic members? Freedoms are better enjoyed when they arent being abused. What I see in the community is a very select few toxic individuals abusing their freedom, leading to many other individuals not exercising theirs.
not sure about this. I agree there should be some recourse for addressing minor offenses like these. My only concern is a lot of these low level offenses are up to interpretation (trolling fud etc.) I think there has to be concrete definitions of what is trolling/fud/ mocking before moving forward with this. Would love to hear some other’s opinions.
So if someone trolls three times in 10 years they will get banned from the DAO? This is not realistic. No strikes should be counted at all for anything. We elect mods and give them authority to decide on a case by case basis. We can discuss their actions, and even vote to do/undo ban/unban as the community wishes. I believe this whole 3 strike rule to be unnecessary.
In what ways have the mods not been doing their job?
They cannot ban anyone from the community (except the obvious scammers whom have never participated) without our vote correct?, and we are currently going thru the proper governance process to ban someone now, no?
I don’t believe that any offense should carry on over the years in that manner. A 3 strike rule would ban people, for life, over offenses (like insulting another community member) they committed over the course of a lifetime. I’m not trying to diminish these offenses, but I believe that if someone is banned, it should be done thru the governance process, as we are doing now with Jarod.
I doubt you were banned without valid reason, but if you were banned without a vote and the community has not raised the issue, or presented a proposal to unban you, then they must be in accordance with it. I did not realize you were banned at all. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Are you suggesting that people should be punished for how they voted, and that they are no different from someone being banned, even though they broke no rules? That’s a little far fetched and authoritarian.
I agree with @dogman, we need crystal clear expectations of what violates the code of ethics. I’m on the fence about this one, small time outs would be useful, but ultimately, we need consequences with teeth to make any significant changes.
@Doug-NFTWorld, I understand this suggestion might be difficult for you to accept, but I recommend putting @jar0d in charge of the moderation duties. I know he’s looking for something productive to do, but only if he is openly willing to assist you and the mod team.