Develop a role-based system to aid in Discord moderation
Roles allow tiered access to participate in certain channels. All members will be able to read the channels, but ability to message, react, or voice chat may be restricted. Upon joining the Discord all* channels are made available to read. They can participate in the basic/informational channels When members verify their NAME in world, they are granted a role which gives participation access to all* channels
*the Wild West access is granted via a self-selected role. Anyone can participate here after selecting this role, regardless of restrictions. This channel will remain unmoderated aside from scams, threats, and severe violations of the CoE.
Develop a role-based disciplinary system to avoid banning/restricting access to information
Time-Out Role (temporary role based on offenses as described in the CoE):Can’t message outside of probationary channels + Wild West; can’t speak in voice channels
Restricted Role: can’t message outside of Wild West; can’t speak in voice channels; can only access “information” channels (meaning can’t access zenzone, not dao related, or any fun/more personal channels)
Develop bots to assist in moderation and maintenance of role-based system
Keep record of disciplinary actions in the public log & provide monthly reports
Commit to a “mediation as moderation” approach and reserve banning/restrictions for last resort situations
Hi Mimsy, I support you, HP and Szjanko however in regard to Ivey, I do not appreciate the cancel culture that he represents in deleting comments he doesn’t seem to “like”. I have seen deletions in Discord around issues/statements that I believe do not go against the COE. In addition, he has banned “ALT” accounts without proving they are alt accounts and simply banned because someone said he should. My vote would be NO because Ivey is included however, I have delegated my VP away and am only commenting because I have respect for you, HP and Szjanko.
Jenn
Mimsy’s interactions with me feel like trolling, always supporting another troll, Jarod. This group is biased and far from neutral. Additionally, Mimsy has co-authored some proposals with the core team, which makes her a preferred person who can influence people according to the core team’s ideology. Some members are from the same team, like KOA. While I believe HP is capable of doing this work, people like Mimsy are biased and will do a terrible job. Recently, Ivey struck me without any proper basis, seemingly because he doesn’t like me questioning the core units and holding them accountable. This team aims to oppress people, silence voices, and I am 100% certain they will not bring justice to this position.
Actually the opposite, we aim to use timeout only as very very last recourse, to not ban any actual members (only scammers), and to try to resolve conflicts as soon as they arise instead of letting it happens in the general channel then TO all participants.
Dhingia - I’m sorry that most of our interactions in the Discord are rather troll-like, but I definitely don’t feel that’s all on me. I mean, you accuse me of being an alt and not real even though I’m a relatively un-doxxed person who is frequently in voice chats on other servers with the same people you accuse me of being. It’s just too comical to not participate because the accusation is so ridiculous. I never intend to be malicious or harmful, and genuinely apologize if it comes off that way. Just a good laugh.
Aside from that, our team values the ideals of moderation/censorship as an absolute last resort. Our plan is to bring back bots in a more productive manner to reduce the human element wherever possible in order to curb any potential bias. Additionally, we plan to avoid bans altogether (aside from scams) by implementing a system that doesn’t restrict access to information but protects members from unwanted interactions from those not following the CoE. I think the plan we have developed will please those who truly favor minimal moderation and disagree with censorship and banning in web3 spaces.
The last point I want to address is you citing my involvement in co-authoring DAO proposals as a negative. This doesn’t make sense to me. Wouldn’t you want a team of actively involved DAO members? We don’t have to agree on policy, that’s what voting is for. But I think it’s a bit silly to label authoring proposals as a negative hit when it should be viewed as a history of invested interest.
Commit to a “mediation as moderation” approach and reserve banning/restrictions for last resort situations
This approach, interpreting the Code of Ethics at one’s own discretion and not banning those who violate it, has led to many members leaving the DAO and Decentraland in general.
Thanks, but NO. We need strict adherence to the COE and not ephemeral future policies that will make the situation worse!
Hi Jenn! I’ll just try to give some context of the overall role and sorry to hear about the cancel culture perception because it’s definitely not the place we’ve intended or intend to go. Behind every mod action there’s a community member demand. Whether DMing or commenting in any channel there’s someone affected that request Mod action and it’s up to us to interpret that situation and do something about it or not. It’s never out of personal drive. Regarding Alts, I do agree on the discretion of determining who’s an Alt and who isn’t and it’s something interesting to work.
I do believe in plural, open, heated debates without crossing the lines descripted in the CoE and I think most community members do engage and participate in that way.
Thank you, this is a perfect example of why we feel this approach is appropriate!
We know that the DAO has an extremely diverse community, and often times conflicts seem to come from a misunderstanding of language - not from mal-intent. It appears you have misunderstood what we mean when we say “moderation by mediation.” This has nothing to do with interpreting the CoE. Instead, this means we are taking an approach of creating a private space to allow members in conflict to talk it out with the help of the moderation team instead of simply shutting down conversations. We understand that sometimes this process can get messy, so we intend to mediate in a non-public channel and provide the resolution to keep transparency. That way, everyone can feel comfortable to work through their misunderstandings without uneeded commentary further aiding in the misunderstanding, keeping the public spaces welcoming for all, and still providing the resolution of the conflict/conversation for transparency in a manner respectful to those involved.
Also to address “not banning” - if you look at our disciplinary role system you’ll see that violators, even though not being banned, are being restricted from participating. I personally believe it is wrong to restrict access to information, but agree that harmful actors should not be allowed to interact with other members. Additionally we have taken into consideration channels that have the possibility to contain more personal-type content from members or otherwise non-informational content and would limit viewing access to those channels to protect community building spaces from those who might take advantage of things shared.
But, what is the harm in allowing someone to continue reading announcements? Or listening to the Town Halls? Or the other areas that contain relevant DAO information? If they can’t chat, speak, or react, what damage can they do?
I completely understand what you’ve written, and I’ll reiterate: we don’t need to put those who violate the COE in private conversations. Instead, we need to enforce the COE and penalize inappropriate behavior and insults, to avoid creating a troll environment. What you’re suggesting isn’t a resolution; it’s destroying the DAO and Decentraland in my personal opinion.
I don’t have a desire to argue with you because we’re completely not aligned. Let the DAO decide anyway. Thanks and good luck!
1000% agree with @DedHeadJ here. @Ivey deleting my responses for subjective reasons to her question in the forums and reason for it was no joke “…that statement contributes nothing…” when it was 1. about the issue in the forum and 2. an answer to the question someone asked. is abuse of power to silence others when your only reason is you don’t agree with them is cancel culture censorship 101 and should not be funded by the DAO let alone allowed to happen.
Also @Mimsy 1. continuing to egg on the the pay roll trolls bulling I have been receiving past couple months with constant emojis, 2. telling people things are one way when it is not the case and they were not even involved, and 3. accusing me of “spreading misinformation.” When all I was did was explained to someone that asked me what happened, I can only deduce they will continue to base their actions on objective opinions and if we continue to go down that rabbit hole when they get into power = only what they allow people to say will be spoken here.
I do not agree with cussing me out, talking down to me, and harassment of the payroll trolls (HP, PB, and Tobik) always do to me, however will choose freedom of speech any day over asking for them and I both to be censored over your guys subjective opinions on what you guys deem as “right.”
PS: MAKE SURE TO SCREENSHOT THIS SINCE THEY WILL NO DOUBT TAKE THIS DOWN TO CENSOR ME AGAIN!
These are ALT accounts of Jarod and MATT, Also I think the elections are not being fair People of this teams are going on the other BID and making accusations, In all core units we haven’t seen all the people working on them doesn’t mean that they don’t exist somehow the current folks should manage the Moderation, and delete both the bids, I voted on the other one coz I’m sure mimsy is 10000000000% is not a right person to be on this position, very toxic and have been very weird with her instant replies and insults.
*made edits coz of some grammer. Engalissh is not my mothar taounge
For some people in the team I think its unfortunate but for some others I believe it’s maybe better like this. I would gladly vote yes if HP was not in the team not because I hate him or anything I just dont think he is mod material, has very strong opinions and beliefs which I can’t blame him for but in a Moderator team I would like to see more neutral people like Ryuk or people like yourself.
Thats my reason and I felt the need to explain why I voted the way I did.
past couple months with constant emojis, 2. telling people things are one way when it is not the case and they were not even involved, and 3. accusing me of “spreading misinformation.” When all I was did was explained to someone that asked me what happened, I can only deduce they will continue to base their actions on objective opinions and if we continue to go down that rabbit hole when they get into power = only what they allow people to say will be spoken here.
