We regret to inform you that Hlib, a contestant for the RC-DAO council seat from Europe, has been removed from the running due to allegations of incentivizing votes using zealy (Zealy - Join the movement). This behaviour goes against our community’s election code and conduct, and we cannot condone such actions.
We take these matters very seriously and have thoroughly investigated the allegations. As a result, we have decided to remove Hlib from the candidacy for the council seat. This renders all his votes invalid so far.
He can defend his position on this matter for transparency’s sake.
We hope all members will continue supporting our commitment to transparency and fairness in the RC-DAO community.
Also, read the election code of conduct for more information.
I am writing in response to the recent announcement regarding my removal from the running for the RC-DAO council seat due to allegations of incentivizing votes using Zealy. I would like to address the accusations and present my side of the story.
Firstly, I would like to emphasize that the message about not using Zealy or any other incentive platform for bribery was not prominently displayed or communicated to me. The vast volume of messages within our RC Election chat was not brought to my attention. Therefore, I was not aware of any explicit prohibition regarding the use of such platforms.
Secondly, the RC DAO Code of Conduct (COC) is not easily accessible or readily available for reference. It is unfortunate that I was unable to locate it within the chat or the voting DAO. If it had been clearly presented and easily accessible, I would have been more cautious in my actions.
I would like to emphasize that our intention was never to “hack” or “break” the council voting process. Our initiative was merely a small reward intended to encourage members of our community to participate in the voting process. It was not meant to manipulate or influence the outcome in any significant manner.
Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the quest was stopped and promptly deleted as soon as we were made aware that it was not in line with the rules and guidelines. We only had three votes obtained through this method, and given that everything is recorded on-chain, those votes can easily be identified and removed from the final count.
In light of these points, I respectfully disagree with the decision to disqualify me from the candidacy for the council seat. I believe that the punishment should be proportionate to the offense and take into account the circumstances surrounding the incident. I acknowledge that mistakes were made, but I assure you that there was no malicious intent or deliberate effort to compromise the integrity of the voting process.
I remain committed to transparency and fairness within the RC-DAO community. I appreciate the opportunity to present my perspective and address the accusations. Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
definitely, i can interpret this action as a proper marketing activity to bring attention to NDC in general in the whole web3-space through the most progressive quest platform, and to the Election. This authentic approach shows the level of impact that the Council will bring to RC DAO, his serious intention to the movement and how it’s important for the community. i have nothing against it, it doesn’t break no one described rule.
While there will always be room to improve and do better with communication and everything about elections, we did communicate this rules. And we communicated it directly to all candidates in the channel that had all the candidates and was created purely for the purpose of discussing election matters amongst all candidates standing for elections and Admins
You were part of the RCdao/RCWG Core Contributors up until just less than 24 hours before the beginning of the RCdao election when you had to formally step down. How can lack of knowledge about Election Code of Conduct be an excuse especially as a Co Contributor and especially if it was a topic of discussions in about 4 or even more community weekly call meetings on RCdao Election being the agenda leading to the election
You can own up to your wrongs but insinuating we did not communicate the consequences especially with vote buying and incentivization of votes is false.
Alao, remember that no one is against you.
We leave this to the community to judge after the elections.
You should have done your research and been aware of these guidelines, given that you are a contestant, and not just a voter. It isn’t the end of the world, take care.
If I have a chat without any pins and with lots of messages I just do it like that, just click read all messages So it means nothing if I have “viewed” in the telegram.
The problem with communication from RC WG is not new, and I’m not the first
Posting a message in the chat without any pins, and clearly showing rules to everyone is not clear communication. RC WG has exactly same problem all the time.
I wrote rules that we need to do in the RC WG when I was there, but nobody following them.
I was not interested in building an election because I’m participating in it.
Hlib, for you to fault a message in a group you REFUSED to pay attention to is not something someone like you should say. It’s not an attribute of an OG that you should be one.
You are neglecting the point where you were still a core contributor and in all the closed groups where key things are discussed towards to success of the Working Group.
It’s funny that you are refusing to admit that:
The code of conduct was sent out and emphasized several times but you failed to take it at heart.
You did the zealy contest during the election, and there is no reason to give an excuse that it is not against the code of conduct.
The community expects more from you.
I don’t know if you wanted the admins to mail the code of conduct to your doorstep before you will read and accept.
Creating the closes group was a way of helping all contestants to keep tabs on every progress towards the election.
I am strongly against the disqualification of @kiskesis.
Some preliminary important points I’d like to note:
The name of this post is misleading. Why has it been released as ‘Election Publication’?
It is best practice to accurately describe the subject matter of a post. This is important as people scrolling on the forum can decide whether it picks their interest and go in.
I’m willing to give admins the benefit of the doubt, but I would not blame anyone for believing that this post has been deliberately mislabeled as to obfuscate it’s true nature and avoid scrutiny from wider community.
Admins are not elected. Council members are being elected now.
I’ve witnessed tension and outright hostility between Admin and candidate in question. Enough to raise concerns of this being a targeted attack. A simple situation being blown out of proportion.
Reasoning for opposing disqualification:
As we unpack this situation, it should become clear to anyone looking at the actual data on-chain, that this is most likely to be an honest mistake. A warning should be issued and candidate allowed to remain within the candidate pool. Let the community decide, not unelected Admins
The claims of ‘vote buying’ are grossly exaggerated.
2.1 The buying in question refers to 0.1 NEAR and some XP points on Zealy.
2.2. It is not rational to believe that ANYONE would change their mind for a few cents.
2.3 The candidate has already clarified that the 0.1 NEAR was meant to cover gas balance.
Applying such a broad and vague standard of ‘vote buying’ raise real reasons for concern as any transaction could then be caught, if the Admins decided to disqualify someone: gifting free NFTs (which I do every month using ShardDog), YouTube videos, etc.
3.1 There is a failure from Admins to exercise their discretionary power, simply resorting to a draconian ‘every breach no matter how small’
Ratio of ‘corrupted votes’ v real votes
4.1 There are only 3 votes that came from Zealy campaign v 88 (to date) from legitimate voters.
4.2 It is very easy to take out the ‘corrupted votes’ while respecting the will of the people.
Legitimacy of Elections
5.1 Disqualifying a candidate that has gathered such support from the community for very questionable grounds (minor offence) is more likely to turn the community against RC DAO than to ‘protect the integrity of the election’.
5.2 There have already been questions about the election, the design and integrity, and in particular, the Admins and the way in which they are exercising their power.
Timing of the Incident & Community Targeted
6.1 The Zealy campaign was created several days after the Voting Group closed. So even if there were large amounts of people who would’ve been influenced by the campaign, they must have already joined out of their own initiative.
6.2 The Zealy was created on the community of the candidate. This is important as, combine with the point above, it makes it more of a reminder than vote buying. Is it reasonable to think that members of the community that the candidate leads were going to vote for another candidate but changed their mind for 0.1 NEAR? Every candidate has implemented ways to engage their community (including I-am-Human referrals and funding their wallets, verifiable on-chain). This is in line with acceptable engagement and campaigning, even if the specific Zealy campaign is not allowed. (This goes towards the Intent, this being an honest mistake over maliciously trying to influence an election).
I’ve seen a lot of irrelevant points such as whether the candidate was aware of the policy or whether the Admins communicated, etc.
7.1 These are mere formalities that don’t change the core of the analysis above.
7.2 Strict liability offence: ignorance is not a defence. The focus needs to be on whether An actual breach occurred, the extent of the damage, and the appropriate course of action.
Need for Intellectual Honesty and Critical Thinking
8.1 Every scenario that arises is unique. It requires people to approach it with an open mind, analyse the facts, and then analyse the intent of the policy in question.
8.2 A law/regulation/guideline can never cater to every solution as it is impossible to foresee every possible scenario, etc.
8.3 Admins have refused to entertain their discretion, rushing to an outcome, ignoring to adequately take into account feedback from community.
8.4 It ought to be a requirement of Admins to be fair, balanced, and principled. As it stands, it is not clear why we need four admins when they all think in-sync and barely think at all beyond the plain text meaning of an ambiguous regulation.
Path Forward
This should be promptly resolved by:
Acknowledging it was an honest mistake
Issuing an official warning to candidate
Removing the three votes in question
Allowing candidate to remain in the candidate pool
Reviewing guidelines to ensure they deal with the nuance of campaigning v ‘unduly influencing’ the election
On-going hostilities from Admins to candidates should be referred for review by a neutral third party.
• Hlib created Zealy after Voter group closed… So this is not a case of onboarding new users and giving them gas
• Hlib offered 0.1 Near and 1000XP rewards to those already in the Voter group to Vote for him and then to show proof of voting
• Hlib Admitted doing so
• Hlib got disqualified for vote buying according to the guidelines and Code of conduct
Opinions:
• Would Hlib make a great candidate… Yes… So will every other candidate for council… Heck i personally mentioned a few times he would make a very solid council
• Should we say because Hlib will make a great candidate and his popular we should skip the consequences for him?
• Should we say because Hlib is leading his region we should take away the fact that he breached code of conduct that had a punitive measures attached to it?
So are sayiny we should be setting the precedence that shows that when anyone claims ignorance by tagging it an honest mistakes for their actions of beaching the code of conduct we should let it slide.
Because the narrative being pushed so far is not of the fact that he Hlib clearly got himself in vote buying ( even if he says its an honest mistake ) but that admins are doing the ones doing a bad job.
In real life, this question should be resolved in court or a similar commission.
From RC DAO chapter (v 0.8, last?):
Regional Communities will establish a fair and transparent process for investigating and addressing reported violations, which shall include:
Gathering information and documentation related to the alleged violation.
Providing an opportunity for the accused member to respond to the allegations and present their side of the story.
Consulting with relevant stakeholders, experts, or advisors to assess the severity and impact of the violation.
Determining appropriate disciplinary actions based on the investigation findings while considering factors such as the severity of the violation, the member’s history of misconduct, and the potential for rehabilitation.
All these steps weren’t made.
There are two next ways to resolve this case:
restore the candidate (because he removed this quest and three votes could also be removed)
take over this case to independent mediators where the decision will be given to the actions of moderators and candidate.
I aslo aware about conflict between some admins
and Glib, for his personal opinion on processes. It could cause for decision making.
The question that we should always ask: what damage did this actions made?
If it is something that changed the election or cannot be reversed, that is one question, if we are speaking about that person CLOSED everything ASAP, and the damage is 3 votes, than that is another question, votes could be calculated and it cannot be disqualification in any ways.
In this situation, it is crucial for individuals seeking positions to be fully aware of the laws and regulations that govern their actions. The consequences of unknowingly going against the rule can be severe, particularly in the context of contesting for a position. While ignorance may seem like a reasonable defense, it is ultimately the responsibility of every individual to familiarize themselves with the rules that govern their activities. This is especially true for those aspiring to hold positions, where decisions and actions can have profound impacts on others. Disqualification from contesting for a position after unintentionally violating the rule serves as a reminder of the importance of staying informed, not only to protect one’s own reputation but also to maintain the integrity of the process. It highlights the need for candidates to be diligent in their research, seek legal advice when necessary, and continuously educate themselves to ensure their actions align with the rules and regulations of their respective jurisdictions. In doing so, they demonstrate their commitment to upholding the rules and their suitability for positions of responsibility.
Hey @IgbozeIsrael, you mean the document that was changed after the quest was created. I am also aware of your conflicts with @kiskesis, referring to this screenshot, I would like to receive evidence that the document was changed not in your favor.
I was looking for a mention of this document in the chat and did not find it, it is difficult to find useful information from your chat, only conflicts and disputes.
All this should be decided on near.social by voting of OG badge holders. Otherwise, you can decide that it was out of personal motives in connection with conflicts.
Hello, in my opinion this is a case of loss of trust, how can we trust a leader who is capable of buying votes for such a crucial decision-making? We expect the same as a council member when he wants to support a vote that benefits him? I am not in a position to decide the seriousness of this action but it should be an attitude to consider and not let it pass as they have already said here, it is not the number of votes obtained, rather the action.
So it means nothing if I have “viewed” in the telegram.
