Hi @EvmFinance, welcome to the forum, glad you are here 
I’m lavande and I work with the Optimism Foundation. The Foundation fully understands the feedback from you, and many other delegates, that the community does not want to vote on Code of Conduct Violations. We also want to avoid a system where the Foundation has unilateral enforcement power "behind closed doors.” The ideal scenario, which is not what we currently have, is a transparent system that eliminates the role of the Foundation in this process entirely while still allowing for accountability in the community. We have been working to move away from the current flawed process in the following ways:
- Last Season, we put forward a request for the community to suggest alternatives
- A proposal for an elected Code of Conduct Council, which you can read more about here, has just passed. We have tried to make it very clear that the Token House will not be asked to vote on any more proposals like this in the future.
- Nominations are currently active for the Code of Conduct Council and the Foundation is committed to working with the Council to rescope and redefine how the Code of Conduct is enforced. I believe this approach is aligned with Carlos’ statement below:
We should be using this as an opportunity to learn as a collective. Maybe the rule is worded in a way that protects individuals and organizations using the forum to deceive while punishing the people willing to call others out, even if using widely and publicly shared information.
Laws often evolve due to changes in values, technology, awareness, and unforeseen circumstances. Maybe this is a situation that requires a revision of the rule? Many people have been victims of wrongful convictions and unjust incarceration because the laws in place were ambiguous, contorted, or when conflicting precedents exist. We don’t have to move at the same pace as governments as we build the new frontier.
Unfortunately, the report that was voted on occured during the last few days of Season 4, during which period the original process was still in place.
Finally, the Foundation plays a purely administrative role in this process. A valid report was filed, through the process outlined in the Code of Conduct, and it was handled according to the procedure outlined therein. It is clear that the enforcement process and procedures need to change, as acknowledged above.
In regards to Carlos’ original concerns over the badgeholder distribution method, I’ll point back to my original comment, but the bottom line is that this is an important conversation to have but it should focus on providing feedback on the current badgeholder expansion mechanism, and how that should evolve/improve, not questioning the qualifications of individual badgeholders. Badgeholder expansion will be done via Citizenship criteria in the future, so the best way to engage in this conversation is to suggest criteria for determining Citizenship in the future and/or propose a path to move towards citizenship criteria, and away from the current expansion method, as soon as possible. You can leave suggestions and/or continue this conversaton here.