Just thinking out loud

Being a silent observer of th community over the past few months has taught me many things. Contributors are rewarded big time. Anyone who brings even a penny of value to the space is rewarded a dollar for their efforts. Which is remarkable and every contributor acknowledges it with utmost respect. But there are some rather unpleasant things that are often overlooked.

In the internet age, keyboard warriors are empowered more than ever. Pseudonymous profiles (or anon as most people would like to call them) have become tools both for self defence (protecting privacy) and attack (bullying and toxic vigilantism). How does someone who’s on the receiving end of such toxic vigilantism respond or seek help?

Where should an individual go for grievance redressal when they feel threatened by or uncomfortable about something? Who is the right authority for such instances? Is it the Foundation or some other body?

I refuse to believe that someone would scour forum posts and social media profiles of hundreds of people, all day without financial or some other motivation. Usually these self proclaimed vigilantes have the blessings of some higher ups which could very well be the case here or it could also be a rare instance of someone being so deeply passionate about the ecosystem that they make it their life’s sole purpose to “investigate” and “interrogate” people even if it means using “intimidatory” approach.

Seeking accountability is totally fine. Seeking transparency should be appreciated. But how can hounding and questioning someone’s integrity be justified? There have been several instances of unpleasant forum interactions in the past few months. What does all of it reflect? There are no reporting or communication standards.

What does the Foundation or various DAOs expect from contributors in terms of reporting when they give funds to them? How does the Foundation or DAOs assess which contributors are worth rewarding and who aren’t. Empowering the community is something that everyone should appreciate but does it mean giving anyone and everyone the “freedom” (sorry couldn’t find a more appropriate word) to seek “accountability” from anyone and everyone?

If that is something which the Foundation indeed strives for then it should be explicitly communicated that every person who receives funds should be prepared to answer questions by anyone, regardless of what the answer seeker’s own credentials or background is. This is a thin rope to walk on since then it opens the room for people to even start questioning Foundation members and this could spiral into a very unpleasant culture very quick. Questioning someone’s integrity or hounding them will then become a norm in the veil of seeking “transparency”.

The question then is how do we prevent it? How do we make sure there is “non-invasive” and “reasonable accountability” without making someone feel threatened or cornered. Hostility has never resulted in productivity.

How can we have different incentive models for contributors and same reporting standards?

I am looking to learn.

1 Like

Absolutely agree with you. I think Near can create kind of Transparency commission, establish standards for guilds and people who do some paid work here. Unfortunately, initially were made some mistakes and now we see how small group of people has assess to all paid opportunities. They brought friends and closed access to entire great Near community. Degens for instance. Some guilds (not at all) do their work not transparent, don’t have DAO’s , salary of management over 70-80% of all the guilds budget. Pursue other goals.
Absolutely independent people like me and other guys trying to rectify the situation, fight for equal access to opportunities for everyone. I don’t it free as a true Near believer (May be unusual for some guilds leaders who is gonna stop their and guilds work if funding is not received, sounds crazy? but I know these guys) . Look at what we have now: closed group of people occupied most of guilds and groups. Yes, may be they do their work great, but give a chance to other. Unfortunately, every time I’m a target of aggression and bullying from another people just because I ask them be more transparent and don’t violate transparency policy.

Looking for a help too.

2 Likes

Nice post.

  1. A procedure to resolve conflicts is in deed a necessity.

  2. Transparency is one thing I think very easy to achieve, but standard payroll is a tricky one… Will be nice if we could make soon enough some standards so we will see that a council member can get a reward from $400 USD as minimum and $1000 USD as maximum for example, and other range of payrolls for another jobs/tasks within the community.

  3. Standart for content creation and sharing this content using any social network but always having the publication on Medium.com and broadcast it on Twitter.com

Best regards kind gentleman @Sverigeite

1 Like

I meant report standards, like everyone who requested payment should show the money was spent (ammount /wallet). Actually, 80% of guilds and Marketing DAO grantee already do it.

And pivotal point : open access for everyone to opportunities. Now, community members see lack of information about it. A lot of them share with pm ‘s only.

1 Like

Yeah, it should be a requirement to post the job information first on the forum and give a report of the candidate list / selection.

1 Like

Hey hey! Welcome to the Coommunity :tada:

When you signed up for the forum you should have received a message (from me :D) which outlines the Community Guidelines.

Within those guidelines there is a section entitled:

What Should I Do if I'm Feeling Attacked or Uncomfortable?

Below it is a guide to report any post, comment, or message, to the NEAR Forum moderators.

The Community Guidelines (and guides for reporting) were also shared here:

This is (and should be) outlined by the specific DAO:

Openly, in each and every proposal thread. It’s really important to note that proposals, particularly those aimed toward the Community Squad DAO + Fund, are not just inviting comments from the Council. Rather, we invite comments and feedback from every single NEAR Community Member who wishes to share it.

There are very few occasions where proposals are rejected entirely, we always want to allow people the freedom and flexibility to pursue their creative proposals.

In my opinion, yes. Absolutely. The ultimate goal of the NF is to make itself redundant and pass everything over to the Community. This requires a certain level of community-driven accountability. In fact, this is integral to working in an open source ecosystem.

Personally, I welcome questions from anyone and everyone in regards to how we operate. The NF is, fundamentally, transparent - particularly toward the community.

There’s a difference between questioning the routes that funds have taken and making derogatory accusations toward someone’s character. The former is fine, the latter is not.

I’d encourage anyone and everyone to please review the Community Guidelines:

Please make use of the reporting function. There are administrators and moderators in the Forum for a reason. We won’t stand by and nurture a toxic environment. However, we do, and should, encourage community-driven accountability and, on occasion, some of those questions can be tough.

Can you expand on this, please?

2 Likes