[DAO Discussion] Allow users to seek redemption through the community
The objective of this proposal is to allow previously punished community members to seek redemption for their punishment through the community.
- I would like to see a formal proposal
- I am not interested in seeing more
High Level Details:
Throughout the last year, a series of people have received various types of punishments for a various amount of reasons. Unfortunately, some of the affected individuals have been punished without breaking DAO guidelines and therefore do not have an appropriate channel in which they can gather community support to be set free once again.
Provide Low Level Details:
To make it all more fair, I suggest the active community gets to vote on whether an individual have served their sentence and deemed ready to enter civilisation again. Every person can commit mistakes and change over time. Without mentioning any names, we have a real life example of this of someone who is very active in the Discord server. Therefore I suggest the following:
- A separate Discord channel is created with a poll bot
- Every indefinitely punished member can reach out to the head of Communication to ask for a poll to the community on whether they believe the person in question should be redeemed
- The reason for initial punishment is clearly stated in the vote
- Each poll lasts 24 hours
- Should the Community deem that punishment should be upheld (by majority votes not in favor), a 60 day lock period will be implemented before said Community member can apply again
- If the Community deems that the person in question should be redeemed, the core team will do their utmost to ensure that punishment is removed
Feel free to add any comments/suggestions!
Since a DAO Discussion is meant to introduce a proposal, not all information may be available at this stage. The discussion should be used to measure the community’s interest in what is being proposed. If the minimum requirements are met, it can be submitted as a Request for Comments.
This is a good idea for checks & balances to make sure there isn’t any prejudice in these decisions and they are fair.
I already have a draft unban request category on the forum.
Could just have people do a request there and when it reaches some metric then its good enough. 24h limit can be set… Plus the Discord already has an appeal process for bans.
I find it hard to imagine people will go around looking to see if someone is looking to be unbanned tho.
Community could be just as biased lol
I’d argue that there is a higher probability Community members are gonna engage on request through Discord rather on Forums, I believe checking statistics parameters on both platforms would support this. I believe there is a “meme” aspect of this that could make it something someone would tune into daily and something that could benefit the community more by having discussions on whether someone deserves to be redeemed or not, contributing to overall growth and dialogue between members.
Even if the Community as a group is biased, they still make out a larger group than individuals being biased. And since this is about becoming part of the Community, if the majority of members would welcome a certain individual, I see more positives than negatives as they are the ones that will have to deal with the individual if they are allowed another chance. This of course does not remove the ability for those in power to remove punishment for someone on their own if they deem it reasonable.
Maybe, but unfortunately, has it has been mentioned before, the Discord is privately owned and the DAO has no power over it
I would also recommend using a different terminology than “redemption” in the title to make it more obvious it is not about redemption as per WIP 9 and 18
If the DAO agrees and the private owner does not agree, alternative options/solutions will be provided in the RFC beforehand. However, given the current outcome of votes and statements, I believe the current private owner would support the mentioned proposal should it receive community support.
I believe this is a fair and valid proposal. In any instances an individual is punished for previous mistakes or by a result of poor judgement on behalf of the governing body, an attempt at redemption should always be an option. This proposal sits in-line with normal DAO behaviour and allows community members to agree to overturn such punishment if they see fit.
I would support this initiative. If I may suggest that when a ban appeal is posted, the offense is clearly stated along with a blurb from the banned member (maximum character limit applies).
This would allow the banned member to either plead innocence or provide context for their understanding of the ban and a willingness to do better. I feel that member’s blurb will be more revealing for the community on whether to unban them, than the carefully crafted ban reason that is provided in the appeal will be.
If this is approved, hopefully it goes through after the DAO Amendment one, or this would be abolished anyway. If this goes through before, it would need to be included in the DAO amendment text. Now that I’m thinking about it so many questions come up. I’m unsure how to frame this issue. Should we assume some current proposals might pass so we should mention that they should be included in the DAO Amendment proposal, or do we wait to see if things pass? How close to the DAO Amendment being sent to WIP does a different approved WIP need to be in order to not need to include it in the DAO Amendment WIP? @NalX do you have any thoughts on these questions?
In all reality, we dont need a vote to implement this. And even if we get a vote, the DAO doesnt have the power to implement this in it’s current form.
It will depend on how both proposal turn out.
I agree that the proposal in it’s current form is not exhaustive, which is mainly due to it being in DD. However, even in it’s current form and given the current state of the protocol I’d argue we’re in a reverse paradox. If the private owner agrees, the proposal would pass, if they don’t agree it would not. But will make sure to outline the RFC in a way where the DAO is fully capable of implementing this.
I’m not The Ferengi but I support this Proposal.
Looks like Garrett would support this proposal too
Wen WIP? This should be moving forward by now.
Proposal has not reached previous minimum requirements and poll indicates no interest from the majority. Since it has been essentially inactive for two weeks, the discussion will be closed.