NDC Dispute Resolution Process [draft v2 and v2.1]



The purpose for which the NEAR Digital Collective is organized is to be consistent with the aims and objectives of decentralization as pursued by the NEAR Community and web3 at large.

Given this, the process below is set to guide our organization towards maintaining a peaceful environment for productive coexistence amidst the NEAR Community.

Please note:

Dispute resolution can only feasibly take place on the Governance Forum where protections can be put into place to ensure the discussions of the Community adhere to the Community Code of Conduct. Any instances of negative interactions between individuals that violate the Code of Conduct that take place on social media platforms, in person, etc. can be brought to the Forum for an accounting but no disciplinary action can be guaranteed. We aim to protect our community members for discriminatory and harmful behaviour wherever they are, but this body is limited in its authority and reach.

In keeping with NEAR’s principles of openness, transparency, and inclusion, this process is built on the belief of second chances and rehabilitation, because as an environment of learning for everyone, there must always an opportunity to learn from our mistakes. Intentions always matter, however, actions can hurt.

We want to ensure our community is aligned on how we can best protect ourselves from everything and anything from problematic comments to harassment, so please comment your suggestions if see any gaps or difficulties with this proposed process.


If two or more community members are engaged in a dispute on the Forum or if any community member is seen to be in violation of the Community Code of Conduct or Forum guidelines, the involved community members are expected to flag problematic or incendiary comments and/or present their disputes to the Community Engagement Committee. (Note: for information on how to ‘flag’ a post or comment, please see the Forum guidelines.)

It shall be the Community Engagement Committee’s work to intervene and assess next steps based on the behaviour in question:

  • Minor Offenses - for example: ill manners, foul language, escalated misunderstandings perpetuated by lack of evidence or differences of opinion

  • Major Offenses - for example: threats of any kind, attacks against someone’s character and reputation without genuine cause or evidence, harassment or use of demeaning or derogatory language, violence, and

    • Funds mismanagement and misappropriation of funds - funding designated for community/group use is taken for personal gain without explanation and a passed majority vote by the specific DAO overseeing the funds; funds going toward illegal activities

NOTE: On no account should any community member bring up a private misunderstanding to the Forum, unless the misunderstanding directly affects the work and peace of the community.

Once the instance has been flagged or presented on the Forum tagging the Community Engagement Committee (‘the Committee’) - who will need their own tag on the Forum - the following should occur:

  1. The Committee review the issue in question, asking for clarifying points.
  2. Both parties are asked to convey their views respectfully on the Forum.
  3. The Committee then may choose to convene a meeting between the involved community members - if it would not result in greater harm being caused. This would be a virtual call where hopefully there will be able to be a clear resolution to the dispute.
  4. If the dispute is resolved at this point, the Committee must post a report on the Forum detailing the key points and the end result, i.e. if disciplinary action was decided upon or not. The individual who has committed the wrongdoing may be asked to render a written apology to the other community member in private or on the Forum with a promise of better conduct in the future.
  5. If the dispute is not resolved at this point, the Committee must decide on an appropriate disciplinary action as detailed below.


The definition of harmful behaviour and actions is very nuanced, and so must the proposed disciplinary action taken should be as well. Based on the above classifications of offenses, the below disciplinary actions are proposed:

Offense Type Disciplinary Action*
Minor offense From drop down a test level on the Forum and/or publicly apologize
Major offense From a one-month ban** from the Forum; anything longer than that is to be put to a vote via poll to the full Community with a minimum Trust Level 2 on the Governance Forum
Special cases Life-long bans may be considered but only in the absolute worst cases
Extraordinary cases, namely funds mismanagement and misappropriation of funds Blocked from requesting further funding from 6 months to 1 year as voted on via poll by the full Community with a minimum Trust Level 2 on the Governance Forum

*The disciplinary action chosen by the Community Engagement Committee can be selected from this proposed range of actions depending on the facts of the specific instance in question.

**A ban from the Forum means the individual will not be permitted to:

  1. Participate in any Forum discussions;
  2. Participate in any Forum deliberation;
  3. Participate in any Forum engagements;
  4. Post or participate in any bounties.

We don’t need “commitees” and expensive management to resolve disputes between members. 1 forum mod for $400 for do it.

It’s forum mods job. Disagree waste money to the engagement committee.

These people are proposed to be the forum mods.

Have you considered to check the process of resolving the disputes before suggesting it to be for one person?


What is the dispute resolution committee? Who are these people? We have site administrators, there are consuls and there are co-founders of the project in the end who can put an end to it. At the moment I don’t see any disputes on the forum, there are discussions between the participants.
Thx :relieved:

Add - falue to provide answer or report if requested by any member , example:

++ Permanent ban on the forum and access to any funding.

Have you been on any of the NDC calls?
Are you aware of the NDC?
If the answer to the both questions above is yes, then I think you won’t say this btw.

Seems to me like you and @Naboto have a special report you want @mecsbecs to submit.

How about you create a topic with all your questions in there.

Please, allow the comment section here for community members who would want to add constructively their commemts.

Plus, except for a particular purpose, IMHO asking a person publicly why he/she is no longer working with his previous employer is bad. Are you requesting that she shades the NF or there is what you know that you want to force out of her mouth?


1 Like

Hello @mecsbecs read through and I love what am seeing, cause I’ve also stated we need committees for this position here

Cause people value respect and reputation in a community else we would loose important people on the ecosystem.
@mecsbecs please go through my previous post hope to get some inspiration there


thank you @mecsbecs and the rest of the team working on this for working on and publishing these materials!


Hi! Yes, definitely saw this comment and was glad to see alignment on the need for a committee for this purpose and was inspired by it. A lot of valid points there. Across all three documents, do you feel there is something specifically missing that you had elaborated upon?


Thanks for putting all info in consideration.
I’m all cleared for now


Those people will be voted in by the community when all these documents are accepted. No one of us who has worked on the document so far poses to be a council member. Only I made a post some days back to lead the community engagement working group. As stated always, it is not a final position that I hold. It is just for the purpose of putting document together. I suggest that you join the working group call tomorrow so you have n idea about what is going on. Thanks

1 Like