Hello all,
I have taken much time to read through every comment provided here, rewrite the situation in my own simple terms and deeply think about how to move forward.
To me, these series of events appear to be very complex and hard to decipher as there are vastly different perspectives and experiences intertwined with several different incidents and timelines.
Accusing a community member of manipulation and harm is a serious issue. Being a woman in ANY space, I always desire to stand up and protect my sisters so they may feel comfortable, respected and empowered. Being a human in an imperfect world, I always want to understand all sides of a situation and find solutions for misunderstanding and conflict.
Here are the main issues I see being brought up on this thread:
- The potential that @thephilosopher is using harmful communication to manipulate/control community decisions and/or achieve monetary gain
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- → YES
- We are asking our Portuguese speaking moderators to look at what has been provided. They are taking care to do this thoughtfully and will be reporting back to us.
- After we translate all of the incidents we will decide on what our next steps will be. I personally advocate we take actions of rehabilitation.
- The potential that @thephilosopher & @gushlewis (owner of manutegus.near) added @beetlejuice as a council on Metaverse DAO in violation of any Metaverse DAO policy for adding new council members to the DAO and then @thephilosopher & @beetlejuice together removed @Isa_Danoninho from Metaverse DAO after this violation.
- If there was a violation of any Metaverse DAO policy for adding new council members to the DAO OR removing community members we suggest that the Metaverse DAO community address this internally, perhaps calling for a revote.
- If there is no specific policy made by Metaverse DAO for adding new council members to the DAO OR removing community members and the community feels the actions are fair, then this does not go against any community guidelines. DAO councils are allowed to change and morph, even when it does not make everyone happy.
- To grow from this situation as a community I encourage the Metaverse DAO and every DAO operating within NEAR to contemplate how this type of situation could be avoided. What types of systems/policies can we put in place to ensure all communities are in agreement about shifting council positions?
- @thephilosopher still holding the seed phrases of the Gambiarra DAO Mintbase Store which receive royalties from NFT sales
- This is being resolved currently thanks to the initiation of @FritzWorm and the cooperation of @thephilosopher & @Dazo
- @thephilosopher voting NO against Gambiarra DAO being a council DAO of Creatives
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- → NO; everyone is allowed to vote no
- @thephilosopher explained that there were 3 main reasons he decided to make that vote and even though he felt they were valid, he apologized for voting no because it caused drama and disrupted the community
- This vote was supported by Rafaela @beetlejuice who also apologized for voting no.
- @thephilosopher removing himself from Gambiarra DAO council halfway through March
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- → NO; everyone has the right to leave any DAO when they choose. It is up to them how to do this in manners that maintain relationships.
- It is okay to not be in alignment with a project anymore. We should normalize allowing folks to go when they need to, even if we don’t personally understand.
- @thephilosopher returning 250 DAI (instead of NEAR) which is half of the 500 USD in N to Gambiarra DAO after Dazo requested half of his council payment to be returned due to his early departure from Gambiarra DAO
- Does this go against the community guidelines?
- → NO; there are no guidelines that detail this type of interaction.
- Returning funds is returning funds and exchanging/being fluid with coins is a part of the crypto world. If this is a big concern for Gambiarra after this incident perhaps putting a policy in place for the future would be beneficial.
- Gambiarra DAO’s payment to @thephilosopher for his cryptovoxel land
- Does this go against community guidelines?
- If the payment was out of manipulation or force then this is problematic; we are assessing this by translating the language of all incidents.
- If the payment was done consensually between the Gambiarra community & @thephilosopher I see only miscommunication.
To move forward → we would like to give any other Metaverse DAO or Gambiarra DAO community members the opportunity to give any further accounts on this situation.
We ask that you please keep your accounts respectful, concise, clear and straight to the point. We are not opening space for, nor will we tolerate, escalated attacks or accusations.
We are all in the process of figuring out how to operate in a decentralized way; conflict is inevitable but harm and inappropriate behavior is not. Let’s embody care and move through our conflict with compassion and openness.
A few specific questions:
For @gushlewis → Did you feel forced into voting yes for @beetlejuice to become council?
For Metaverse DAO council & community members:
→ Did @gushlewis & @thephilosopher break any Metaverse DAO community policy by adding @beetlejuice to council?
For any other NEAR community member:
→ If there are any other pertinent details related to the main issues raised above, please let the Creatives DAO community moderators know in private message here on the Forum. If there are details or incidents that you prefer to keep anonymous, we will honor your privacy.