[DAO:ea9c0e2] Name Ban - Establishing guidelines for which a particular NAME would qualify to be banned

by 0x613e052555ac74ff6af0fc64e40e8035c1e9dcf8 (DripGod)


Seeking feedback on whether we should establish clear guidelines that will define a specific criteria under which NAMEs will be deemed eligible for a ban.


Under “The DAO Smart Contracts” from Docs - it states,
“The list of names that have been banned from the Decentraland client is stored in a contract owned by the DAO. This list can only be modified after passing a vote by the community that is then enacted on-chain by the DAO Committee.” for banned NAMEs.

Looking for reasons on why a Decentraland NAME would be banned, I stumbled upon the “DAO User Guide” - where it states, “The “banned name” list includes offensive or harmful avatar and location names that are not permitted in Decentraland. Any names on this list cannot be claimed, used, or transferred between users. To suggest banning a name, you can use the Name ban proposal category in the DAO.”
I found this to be unaligned with the current “Terms of Use”,
12.4 Ownership and management of LAND, Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and Content created by users. Which shares similarities with the ENS DAO Constitution under
“I. Name ownership shall not be infringed” - protecting one of the main core values of Blockchain technology and Decentralization, ownership and control over one’s data, digital assets and online identity.

The purpose of this poll is to obtain feedback and gauge community sentiment around proposing to work on setting up specific criteria for which a Decentraland NAME would be eligible for a ban instead of it being “Ban an offensive name from Decentraland” as this seems too vague at the moment. Example: NAMEs of racist and/or predatory nature.

Docs: DAO Smart Contracts - The DAO Smart Contracts | Decentraland Documentation
DAO User Guide - DAO User Guide | Decentraland Documentation
Terms of Use - Terms of Use
ENS DAO Constitution - ENS DAO Constitution - ENS Documentation

Great reads:

“How does the taking of offense happen? What actually motivates this ubiquitous phenomenon? The taking of offense—or feeling offended—often involves an experience of negative emotions caused by a word or an action which is in conflict with what we expect and believe to be the right, appropriate, moral, and acceptable behavior. Feeling offended or describing something as offensive is deeply rooted in those expectations that govern our daily interactions.”


  • Yes, establish clear guidelines.
  • No, leave as it is.
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Is Banning names a web3 principle? Why even have the process?

1 Like

Agreed, I don’t believe it to be. However NAME Bans are binding proposals at the moment, while I’m not specifically suggesting to remove the ability of the DAO to ban these, as I’m not 100% sure of how the process of removing one of the common actions when submitting a proposal would work exactly, I do think we should work on providing guidelines as to why/how a NAME is being misused or violates a specific criteria at least.

Enough with the ban hammer. What a waste of time.

1 Like

Hello Morris, would you care to elaborate a bit on this?

Too many proposals about bans these days. Find something better and more productive to focus on that would be worth sharing with the greater community beyond the immediate people participating in the DAO. Surely banning peoples assets isn’t the best we can come up with.


Did you happen to read the entire poll or just the title?

It seems we agree, we shouldn’t be banning people’s assets. I believe we should align DCL NAMEs with the ENS DAO Constitution regarding bans. Since I’m not sure we could propose the Ban Name category to be removed from common actions when submitting proposals, I started this poll to see if we should work on some guidelines at least.

Regardless, I appreciate your input.

I did read it all. You are trying to create a standard by which names can be banned such that at least it is documented correctly and aligns with the terms of service. I’m suggesting you write that names cannot be banned and we move on.

1 Like

Thank you for the feedback, I would rather propose for the category to be removed.

Will leave this poll up for others to share their concerns if any while I work on another poll.

I appreciate you creating this poll and starting the coversation. Clearer guidelines are never a bad idea in my opinion, and I’m pretty much here for anything that helps against proposals to ban anything based on personal retaliations…which seems to be the major motive these days.

1 Like

but but Mr Morris words hurt my metaverse avatar feelings cry cry sadge sadge. /s Thanks for stating what most of us been feeling. Bs has gone on long enough daos become a fn joke. I agree with Sannin on alignment with ens.

1 Like

Name Ban - Establishing guidelines for which a particular NAME would qualify to be banned.

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes, establish clear guidelines. 84% 5,613,939 VP (78 votes)
  • No, leave as it is. 1% 3,410 VP (8 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 15% 1,058,064 VP (7 votes)

Name Ban - Establishing guidelines for which a particular NAME would qualify to be banned.

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