Mark District X as 'stolen' This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 37% 3,491,826 VP (59 votes) * No 52% 4,714,943 VP (29 votes) * Abstain 11% 1,035,500 VP (7 votes)

**Voting yes here**. But I'll vote yes on the next stage (Governance Proposal), only if the word "Stolen" is changed to something more neutral, like "Disputed". Its the job of a court to determine if the lands were in fact acquired in an unlawful way or for an unlawful purpose, not ours. All this remembers me of the current [Roots of Pacha](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/stardew-like-roots-of-pacha-removed-from-steam-after-the-developer-and-publisher-disagree-over-the-rights) thing. The game was removed from Steam by Valve, since a disagreement between developer and distributor. Vale is neutral, but it took action. In the same way here the Foundation and DAO can be neutral and take action at the same time.

I think looking at these very simple facts, it is clear the land is STOLEN: 1.) The verbiage used when contributors sent mana and entered a purchase agreement via a signed signature on chain clearly gave contributors the impression they would own land within the district - if this is not the case, they should be refunded, misleading customers at point of sale is illegal in the majority of the world and the purchase should be reverted. 2.) Neither DCL nor other users, can sign away the rights of other land owners/contributors, this is a clear founding principle of DCL and it has been broken when Rob took the land and signed away the contributors rights - how can you sign away someone else's property? Unless the initial purchase agreement is invalid (in which case the users should be returned their mana for a failed purchase), we clearly have a case of stolen property here.

Hi all - Please see the original verbiage attached when users contributed land to districts at the land terraform event:  It clearly states: 'Select the total amount of LAND you would like to have on the district' - how can we in good faith argue that this land does not belong to the contributors, when they were under that exact impression at the point of sale?

You seemed to be the one not understanding the question and failing to distinguish between the legal of the obtaining of the lands and the contractual obligations he needs to fulfil after the contract. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the fact that the lands were obtained/transferred legally but acknowledged that he didnt fulfil the obligations in the contract and calling it fraud. If the contract is, fraudulent in the first place, then why are you sharing screenshots of the contract that was already, in your words, fraudulent? it doesnt make sense.

I've watched this be explained to you by multiple people many times. It is clear you refuse to engage in good faith. *“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”* *― Jean-Paul Sartre*

that doesnt make sense. Commitment has to be fulfilled upon AFTER a legal contract is signed. Only then he should be fulfilling the obligations mentioned in the contract. So i am asking you again, was the obtaining/transferring of the lands conducted legally?

No. If you make promises to get something and then go out of your way to not deliver on your promise, that is fraud.

So, the fraudulent part is AFTER obtaining the lands legally and lawfully? Yes or No?

The part where Rob didn't make good on his commitments and only made the promises fraudulently to be given the assets in question.

so that's not true isn't it. Lands were transferred legally and contracts are there. so where was the fraudulent part?

I am unclear on why you think you have found a loophole in the semantics of language worth pursuing. You asked if the land was obtained through an illegal and unlawful manner. now that you don't like the answer to that question you want to narrow it down further. You can keep moving the goalpost but it doesn't make a better case for your positon.

So the lands were transferred via fraudulent means. Is that what you are saying?

Given that fraud is unlawful. Yes.

Ser, it's a simple yes or no question. Were the lands obtained or transferred to Rob was done through an illegal or unlawful manner? Yes. Or no?

[quote="MetaRyuk, post:40, topic:19276"] That’s not a financial incentive [/quote] You are actively in business with RobL. You've asked the question "what happens to my rental agreement if this land is marked stolen?" Ser, we have provided ample evidence as to why we believe RobL committed fraud to acquire the land fraudulently, I am sorry if you are incapable of reading it. RobL made promises to the contributors in order to be named the district leader, he has subsequently banned and bullied anyone who attempted to hold him accountable.   

That's not a financial incentive. Whether or not i disclosed it before, during or after the discussion is not relevant. By definition, it is not a financial incentive. I asked a simple question, were the lands obtained or transferred to Rob was done through an illegal or unlawful manner? Yes. Or no?

[quote="MetaRyuk, post:38, topic:19276"] I have disclosed that I paid rent to have projects hosted on DX. [/quote] Yes, you did this after going on the better part of multiple months of arguing about the topic as if you had no incentive. Your financial incentive is that you paid for a year of rent in advance and you are concerned what will happen to that agreement in the event the land is marked stolen, this isn't a particularly complicated concept to understand. @MetaRyuk Please please read the thousands of words I've already written on the subject, or at the very least read the 2.1.1 plan RobL presented as the basis for his being named the district Lead. There is no sense in wasting further time repeatedly answering you and injester's questions, they've already been answered multiple times.

What is the financial incentive that i have with Rob? Please explain. I have disclosed that I paid rent to have projects hosted on DX. Are these what you called financial incentives? A financial incentive is defined as: a monetary benefit offered … to encourage behaviour or actions which otherwise would not take place. A financial incentive motivates actions which otherwise might not occur without the monetary benefit.” Going by this definition, what is the financial benefit that i had received from Rob? Because if you are saying that i admitted to have a financial incentive with/from Rob, then this is an accusation and it is a wrong one. Also, since you said I failed to understand the timeline of events, let me ask a basic question. The crux of the proposal is to mark DX as stolen. Were the lands obtained or transferred to Rob was done through an illegal or unlawful manner?

"No, it doesn't" what? You are failing to understand the timeline of events and what is being said to you. RobL intentionally deceived people in order to be named District Leader. He put forward a proposal for how he would run the district to gain support and as soon as he was given ownership of the land he began to systematically silence contributors. [quote="MetaRyuk, post:36, topic:19276"] accusing people of engaging in bad faith when their opinions are not on your side. [/quote] I do not accuse you of engaging in bad faith because we have different opinions. I accuse you of acting in bad faith because you argued with me for months about this issue before admitting you had a financial incentive to want to believe RobL and DistrictX are innocent. I call Injester's opinion "uneductated' because despite his desire to jump into this conversation at every available chance, once again a desire motivated by his financial benefit from working with RobL, because I, and others, have written lots of information on the subject and it is clear based on injester's continued attempts to make the same already disproven arguments that he has put no effort into forming an educated opinion on the topic and is instead just attempting to argue from a position of ignorance. ignorance ĭg′nər-əns noun 1. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

I disagree with you having this habit of accusing people of engaging in bad faith when their opinions are not on your side. People have different thoughts and i clearly mention why i voted no.. to call comments like mine bad faith or uneducated shows you are unable to engage in healthy discussion with people with differing opinions.

No, it doesn't. It was not obtained through theft. You are accusing him of doing things after he had acquired legally. That doesn't change the fact that it was obtained legally and not through theft.

Yeah when I heard about these I also was like wow yh its not something me and you can fix, i know somethings are unjust and there needs to be done alot but i am clueless on this topic 🤷🏻‍♂️

Thanks for all these infos @InJesterr :slight_smile: This is definitely complex

Its a really complex situation indeed alot of unprofessional work which I can understand aswell because back then no one knew that these responsibilities would weigh this much, we are talking about 5 years maybe back when ppl barely knew what decentraland was and that it would become so big, I dont think the foundation back then knew aswell. The only thing I can think of is that people attending at these auction were not even getting land back then since the game wasn’t developed at that time.