Overview
Our HoS community comprises a diverse, distributed network of stakeholders, including the NEAR Foundation, validators, developers, founders, delegates, and community members, each bringing unique cultural perspectives. This diversity, while a strength, inevitably leads to conflicts within the ecosystem.
Need for an independent conflict resolution mechanism
In traditional Web3 protocols, the responsibility of conflict resolution often falls to the foundation, which acts as the final arbitrator. Complainants file complaints against defendants, and the foundation investigates, decides, and enforces outcomes at its discretion. However, this approach has significant limitations:
- Limited Resolution Options: Complainants can only seek punitive measures against defendants, with no mechanisms for collaborative resolution.
- Lack of Transparency: Defendants are often unaware of the complainant’s identity, as the foundation protects anonymity. There is no opportunity for a fair hearing, no “day in court,” and no jury involvement.
- Subjectivity in Decision-Making: Decisions are typically made by one or two individuals, lacking objectivity, a transparent paper trail, or a detailed judgment record.
- Scalability Issues: This centralized process is unsustainable for the foundation as the ecosystem grows.
This proposal introduces an experimental solution to address these challenges, aiming to create a more transparent, equitable, and scalable conflict resolution framework for the NEAR protocol community
Inspiration
This approach to structured discourse draws inspiration from the Munk Debates, a semi-annual debate series founded in 2008 by Peter and Melanie Munk through the Aurea Foundation. The debate series hosts leading thinkers to debate pressing global issues in front of live audiences in Toronto. Since its inception, the Munk Debates have held 28 mainstage events, featuring prominent figures like Henry Kissinger, Samantha Power, and Jordan Peterson, promoting transparent and reasoned discourse with the audience (community) deciding debate victories
Checkout: “AI research and development poses an existential threat” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=144uOfr4SYA&t=1239s
This proposal adapts the Munk Debates’ culture of open, respectful, and structured dialogue, integrating on-chain authenticity to ensure transparency, immutability, and stakeholder participation in conflict resolution process.
Scope
Purpose
This document is intended to provide a structured framework for addressing the following conflicts:
- Professional conflicts of opinion: Resolving professional conflicts arising in HoS governance
- Proposal debates: Facilitating public discussions and evaluations of proposed ideas or plans.
- Elections & selections: Supporting fair and transparent processes for choosing candidates or options.
- Court of public appeal: Evaluating community-driven decisions, such as whether an individual should be banned from a Telegram group.
- A community debate club: An arena for community members to host debates on topics of their choice.
Exclusions
This document is not intended for:
- Personal conflicts: Resolving interpersonal conflicts unrelated to professional or communal contexts.
- Variations: The gameplay does not allow for variations in its format. There is a proven reason why this modality works.
- CoC authority: This is not intended to serve as a legal or judicial authority for formal adjudication of Code of Conduct
- Enforcement authority: The adherence to mechanism behind this gameplay is one of consensus not of enforcement. Meaning debaters agree to adhere to the resolution willfully, this gameplay does not have the authority to enforce.
Gameplay Walkthrough
The following guide outlines the steps for participating in a conflict resolution debate:
Phase 1. Pre debate
Initiate the conflict resolution process by submitting necessary documentation and preparing for the debate.
1.1 Call for resolution
- Request for Resolution: Submit a one-line debate title to the NEAR governance forum to formally propose the resolution.
- Stake NEAR: Parties in conflict stake a nominal amount of NEAR
- Position Papers: Each team submits a 500-word position paper to the governance forum 48 hours before the debate. The paper should outline the team’s stance, supporting evidence (e.g., on-chain transaction data), and proposed resolution.
- Prepare Arguments: Review the opposing team’s position paper. Prepare for moderated questions, cross-examination, and audience engagement, using NEAR’s on-chain analytics to gather relevant data.
1.2 Find the Moderator
- Selection: Choose a neutral NEAR community member
- Pre-Debate Preparation: The moderator reviews position papers, curates 3–5 questions from community submissions and papers, and prepares the
- Collect Questions: The moderator gathers the most upvoted community questions from the governance forum for use during the debate.
1.3 Gather the Crowd
- Engage Pre-Debate: Community members review position papers on the NEAR governance forum and vote on the resolution
- Submit Questions: During the debate, community members submit questions, with upvotes determining which questions are asked.
Phase 2. Resolution debate
Schedule the day of debate in a structured, transparent manner to ensure fair discussion and community engagement
2.1 Resolution in Session (Moderator)
- Introduce the resolution and teams, clearly explaining each side’s position to the audience.
- Announce which team represents the “For” side and which represents the “Against” side.
2.2 Initial Poll (Moderator + Audience)
- Conduct a 5-minute open polling session before the debate begins.
- The moderator publishes the poll to gauge initial audience sentiment.
2.3 Debate Agenda (Moderator + Debaters)
- Opening Statements (5 min/team): Each team presents their position, supporting evidence, and proposed resolution.
- Moderated Debate (15 min/team): Teams answer 3–5 moderator-curated questions, with 2 minutes for responses and 1 minute for rebuttals per question.
- Cross-Examination (7.5 min/team): Teams directly question their opponents, focusing on challenging their arguments.
- Audience Questions (5 min/team): Teams respond to 2–3 community-submitted questions, with 1 minute per response.
- Closing Statements (5 min/team): Teams summarize their arguments and propose actionable next steps.
2.4 Closing Poll (Audience)
- Audience Voting: After the debate, the audience casts on-chain votes via a NEAR DAO, choosing “Agree with For,” “Agree with Against,” or “Still Undecided.”
- Post-Debate Poll: The poll measures shifts in audience opinion, influencing the final governance proposal.
2.5 Scoring & Victory (Moderator)
- The team with the largest positive swing in audience support (difference between pre- and post-debate polls) is declared the winner.
- Outcome: The debate informs a governance proposal, and consensus or compromise is prioritized.
- Post-Debate: Announce poll results, propose a compromise if needed, and submit the final resolution, with all records stored on-chain.
Phase 3. Post debate
Finalize the conflict resolution process by reviewing outcomes and implementing the appropriate changes as per the resolution.
3.1 Review Outcome
- Teams monitor the post-debate poll results and contribute to drafting a governance proposal based on the outcome or a compromise paper.
3.2 Resolution & Incentives
- Winning Team: Receives their staked NEAR back plus a bonus pool.
- POAP or NFT Badges: Minted for the moderator, speakers, and audience as proof of participation.
- Optional Rewards: Winning arguments may be considered for DAO rewards or grants.
- Follow Outcome: Community members monitor the resulting DAO proposal and vote on its adoption to shape NEAR’s governance.
Recording
- Transparency: All debate records, votes, and outcomes are stored on NEAR’s blockchain and accessible via IPFS or community channels for full transparency.
Rules
1. A clear “Definition of Conflict.”
- Both parties must mutually agree on the precise nature of the conflict.
- The debate topic shall be clearly defined in a single statement: “Call for resolution.”
- Neither party may deviate from the agreed-upon topic during the debate.
2. Consent and participation
- The debate requires the participation of both parties.
- Both parties must provide a stake to initiate the debate.
- Both parties must consent to the terms and conditions of the debate.
3. Moderator agreement
- Both parties must agree on the selection of a neutral moderator.
- Both parties commit to respecting and adhering to the moderator’s decisions and guidance.
4. Commitment to fair play
- Both parties agree to adhere to the established rules of debate, including:
- Authority: The moderator has the authority to issue warnings or mute speakers for misconduct, such as disruptive behavior or rule violations.
- Civility: No personal attacks or inflammatory language are permitted. All arguments must be evidence-based, supported by verifiable sources such as on-chain data, NEAR documentation, or community feedback.
- Timekeeping: Strict time limits will be enforced to ensure fairness and maintain focus.
- Evidence-Based Arguments: All claims must be substantiated with verifiable data, such as NEAR blockchain metrics or DAO voting records or market data.
- Anti Sybil: Both parties must refrain from sybil attacks to influence the outcome
5. Resolution acceptance
- By agreeing to participate in the debate, both parties commit to accepting the outcome of the final poll or resolution process.
Tooling
| Function | Web3 Tool / Platform |
|---|---|
| Token-gated access |  Guild, NEAR-native access NFT, or Fractal ID |
| On-chain voting |  Snapshot (via FastAuth), NEAR DAO voting contracts (e.g., SputnikDAO or AstroDAO) |
| Web3 forms |  BlockSurvey, TypeLit, or Formo |
| Audio/Video Debate |  Token-gated Livepeer, Huddle01, Bonfire Spaces |
| On-chain reputation |  Galxe, Layer3, or NEAR-native NFTs |
| Persistent storage |  IPFS or Arweave for storing debate content and results |
Join the Gameplay Mock Experience!
The NEAR community is invited to participate in an open mock experience to test our innovative Web3-native Conflict Resolution Gameplay. I am launching this initiative to pressure-test its tools, functionality, and user experience.
We Need Volunteers to Play:
- Mock debate topics (eg, “Should HoS retain the screening committee ?”)
- Debaters (4–8 participants): Validators, developers, or token holders to form two teams and debate a sample conflict
- Moderator: A neutral community member to facilitate the mock debate.
- Poll Testers: Community members to participate in on-chain polls, submit questions, and provide feedback.
- Engaged Audience: NEAR community members to observe, vote, and share insights.
How to Join:
- Ping me to join the effort. I am kickstarting a small telegram group for this initiative- help shape a governance model that’s transparent, fair, and permissionless.
Note: Seeking suggestions on incentives, tooling, or pretty much any other area of improvement for the gameplay.