Code of Ethics This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 90% 9,196,173 VP (74 votes) * No 9% 910,153 VP (11 votes) * Abstain 1% 1,167 VP (3 votes)

First @Peanutbutta lies about me Then @esteban joins in Now @kanwulf the "moderator" joins in...  They all have one thing in common, not evidence to support their claims.

While I did defend @kanwulf when someone made a proposal to fire him. I must admit, that I have no faith in his, or most of the facilitation squad, to act unbiasedly in how they award strikes. It is very clear there are people able to say what ever lie they want about others, and those who are punished for being upset about having Foundation employees spreading awful rumors about them. While this is a nice idea in theory, I don't see a reason to believe these poorly defined rules will become well defined enough to not be abused by the existing adjudicators.

Thanks all for your feedback! First of all, I want to highlight again what Matimio mentioned about the importance of having something like this codified and agreed upon by the community, as the Discord Rules themselves were not developed through a governance proposal. While we’re still gathering information and feedback to move forward with the Binding Governance Proposal and the final version of the document if this Draft Proposal passes, below you’ll find answers to some of your questions: 1. **Low tier offenses**: based on comments and feedback, we’ve agreed that toxic behavior from the lower tier should have consequences if repeated, so we’ll work on something to address that. 2. **Cool downs**: the first point brings us to the second, since it seems unfair for someone that has done something wrong a long time ago, to have to pay the consequences for it in a different context. With that said, each tier could have its own reasonable cool down time (enough to dissuade, enough to be fair). 3. **“Trolling” & “Harassment”**: not an easy topic, but we’ll try to get some concrete examples to use as guidelines. 4. **Banning times for each tier**: there are specific behaviors that justify an immediate perma-ban, but for others we could consider other periods of time (e.g. 1 year), depending on the broken rule. 5. **Private messaging and social media**: they're are not explicited because we didn’t find a solution for that so far. Some people could say that’s outside the scope, some people would say the opposite. Monitoring social media is definitely something that we won’t do. 6. **Enforcement can’t be overruled by the DAO**: It's explicit at the bottom of the document *“In situations where a moderator is absent or the community deems a timeout necessary, a community enforcement mechanism ‘Modinator’ may be used. However, it is important to note that Modinator actions cannot supersede the decisions made by a moderator to time-out or ban a user due to inappropriate behavior.”*

Voting **Yes**, and I've 3 suggestions: - Is not clear in the code if the "wide-ranging scope" includes Private messaging and Social networks. Should made explicit whether it does or doesn't. - May be good to have a word about how to prevent misuse of the code by moderators. - May be good to make explicit if the Enforcement Mechanism can or can't be overruled by DAO votes, and if the strikes come with some sort of cooldown (strikes expiring over time) or not.

You are currently voting no on banning one of those toxic users using Esteban's delegated VP. Your story does not stick, you will have to take you hypersensitivity elsewhere.

I'm leaning on my background in behaviorism in thinking that WHATEVER we do, we need: Clear expectations Clear consequences Someone willing and able to execute them. (The consequences, not the user) As a special education teacher, I was the one who got students who threatened teachers, students, myself, everyone. I've had death threats against me, I've been punched by 16 year olds, stabbed with pencils, chairs thrown at me, body slammed, etc. etc, and I was still expected to come to school and teach them the next day. It's called FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and it ensures that each student is entitled to an education. **HOWEVER**, when the behavior of that one student begins infringing on the FAPE of the students around them, *then* we can talk about changing their setting. So if I apply this same reasoning in the DAO, when a few users start making the Discord so toxic that it begins to deter from the experience of other users, I think we need to change the setting of the people doing harm. But don't make it ambiguous, make it crystal clear how we need to conduct ourselves, BEFORE hand. Everyone gets to start fresh. Everyone knows what words or behavior will get them banned. We're all human, we all say stuff we regret later. We also just have to be held accountable for how our actions can impact the world around us.

I don't agree with a 3 strike approach. We should have determined consequences for specific actions, some of which may involve a permanent ban, such as scams. However, community members are meant to participate in the DAO for years, even decades to come and a 3 strike rule means that some community members may be held responsible for offenses committed 3, 5, 7 years ago, even small offenses like trolling, if considered a strike, can carry on for a lifetime. This is over-policing the community. I agree with the rules of engagement but not the enforcement mechanisms. Voting NO for now.

What about @jar0d questions? [quote="jar0d, post:8, topic:20125"] A couple questions that pop to mind are: What separates “Trolling” from “Harassment”? Does “you are smarter than this” count as an insult and would it get someone a strike? [/quote]

I am voting no as they failed on all levels.

voting yes. hope this is a step towards making dcl an more amicable environment

[quote="Doug-NFTWorld, post:3, topic:20125"] Voting no, since I dont feel like this is a big enough change to existing moderation policy. [/quote] I see this as a formalization of the Discord Rules and Codification of the Code of Ethics such that they can be enforced with more legitimacy. I'd also like to discuss integration pathways to amend the code of ethics over time, but I think its important to have something like this codified and agreed upon by the community, as the Discord Rules themselves were not developed through a governance proposal.

[quote="Existential14, post:2, topic:20126"] Who specifically determines if it is FUD or a valid question? [/quote] The Code of Ethics, and the moderators - as voted on by the community. [quote]I can think of many people that will have strikes against them quite quickly[/quote] Yes, that's the point. [quote]how strict to we get when we are in a decentralized community[/quote] According to the Code of Ethics and rules just like any other discord and forum. Its not a new concept. [quote] Freedom of expression/Freedom of speech[/quote] 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.

[quote="Existential14, post:9, topic:20125"] . Freedom of expression/Freedo [/quote] Don't talk to me about freedom of speech or freedom of expression where the name Shemale gets banned in a so called decentralized platform in 2023. For those who will say but this name was used to preach hate, I guess the same can be said for all names including one's IRL name depending on what perspective you want to look at things.

I like @jar0d's question and I posted the following in the Strikes governance proposal and it applies here as well. 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. This means that I do believe Yes, there should be one, however this needs to be done very carefully and be quite specific IMO. I will vote Yes today but any future votes will depend on what is written.

**Tier 2 - Medium tier offense (Notable violations of the C.O.E.):** For notable violations like harassing and *insulting any member of the community* as well as the constant disregard of any line from this code. A 24 hours minimum time-out will be applied to the user and 1 strike will be added to the user’s record. That seems like a pretty subjective and easily abused parameter where friends of the moderator will be able to walk on the line of acceptable in ways that people the moderator has a biased against will not. A couple questions that pop to mind are: What separates "Trolling" from "Harassment"? Does "you are smarter than this" count as an insult and would it get someone a strike?

[quote]Categorizing spamming and trolling as a “low tier offense” that doesnt count as a strike is what we have today. And as we have seen, this doesnt go far enough. 1 hour - 24 hour mutes arent consequences. They’re delays.[/quote] Accompanying poll submitted here: https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=5d7920e0-3300-11ee-a39d-ef9ca9e669fd I propose either 0.25 strike, or 0.5 strike for offenses defined as "low tier".

Why has it taken you guys this long to address this issue? Clearly you both failed at performing your mandatory duties, fulfilling orders, keeping up with the guidelines. You both let this go on for far too long without taking any serious action or responsibility. I don't think this proposal is going to repair the damage that's already been inflicted. Community does not forget. You both have knowingly & willingly tarnished & damaged the reputation of DAO. Deleting users/members messages, muting users, changing the topic was never going to be a viable nor effective long term solution. You, out of all people should know that, there would be consequences & repercussions to your actions, especially given your positions. I trust that you will do the right thing to redeem yourselves by effectively & immediately resigning from your current positions.

Good point! Still have time to add/remove things for the final version. So, what comes to my mind, is to add something specific like "falling into that behaviours several times will mean to count as STRIKE 1".

Thank you for taking the time to move this forward. It was an easy yes for me the first round and another yes this round.

 To me, this Code of Ethics just seems more or less like a re-wording of the existing rules. Categorizing spamming and trolling as a "low tier offense" that doesnt count as a strike is what we have today. And as we have seen, this doesnt go far enough. 1 hour - 24 hour mutes arent consequences. They're delays. Voting no, since I dont feel like this is a big enough change to existing moderation policy.

Just in case you don't find the link to the draft document: **━━━━━> [CODE OF ETHICS DRAFT](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dIvHyEMddngMNKagw9qV0qdCqfHE8VEAvXPpOBpcvP8/edit?usp=sharing) <━━━━━**