Hey! In very happy that this came to the best resolution that we can have. I have something that came to my head with a little confusion. In this thread RetroPGF 3: Voting badge distribution - #30 by Gonna.eth you said that we canât categorize citizens with their participation in the forum, and you said that itâs not okay to take into account that someone just joined and makes some points, in their mind.
Just to make my ideas crystal clear are going to take into account the hours in the forum or nope? I think that everyoneâs voice and participation itâs learning for everyone that reads the forum
Ty friend for your time
4 Likes
I have no idea. Iâm not part of OP Fundation.
"Canât itâs a strong word: My say: âThere are numerous factors to consider beyond governance involvement, and Iâm even inclined to suggest nominating individuals who arenât exclusively focused on token governanceâ
Iâm saying that if you want to make some points as new user or old user, try to bring a positive criticism instead, and that I donât personally like the tone used above.
1 Like
You are not coming across as forceful at all. I have clearly declared that I am new to this governance process and spend a huge amount more time reading actual code of the protocol, which is why I made such an empassioned over the top response. It optically looks extremely bad that a token with over a $5 Billion fully diluted marketcap has on-chain votes dedicated to singling out and shaming a individual for alleged rule violations. Outsiders who âdonât understand the intricate process of the foundationâ will see this public airing out of dirty laundry and he said/she said chilish bickering as a red flag. If the only thing I ever saw about Optimism was this thread, my first impression of the community would be that it is toxic, unwelcoming, and lacks empathy for its members. Seeing the OP Foundation account rolling in the mud, slinging accusations against people, while not providing any meaningful evidence about the alleged infraction is just wrong. Getting publicly shamed in a governance vote is a far worse punishment than a 3 month ban from the forums & discord chat, so there is something seriously wrong here where the process itself is a worse punishment than the actual punishment.
1 Like
Wonât happen if people donât doxx. Iâm sorry this is your first exposure to optimism and I wish a more positive vibe from future votes.
If you think thereâs something wrong with the rules that lead to this shaming you are invited to give feedback in the code of conduct and how doxxing should be managed.
My own opinion again.
1 Like
Itâs interesting that even though the community wonât back up the idea of Carlos doxxing, you still insist in labeling him as so. I also find very interesting that even though other forms of doxxing and harassment by @AxlVaz and @CryptoChica have been present in the Optimism forum providing plenty of evidence, the moderation wonât proceed against these cases, just with Carlosâ.
How is this not a clear bias by @Gonna.eth? I ask for support from the rest of the moderation and leave all means of contact open if you have any questions.
I second @EvmFinanceâs opinion:
1 Like
This is my first exposure to Optimism governance, been building in defi a long time.
I donât think there is anything wrong with the rules, doxxing is bad, people who reveal non-public information about others should be punished.
Ideally the violating person would be disciplined behind closed doors, without escalating the situation to an on-chain vote for the entire world to see. Another alternative would be the foundation providing enough evidence for people to make an informed decision, forcing delegates to vote on the guilt or innocence of another human with incomplete information is unethical.
I would like to know the nature of the allegedly private information was allegedly disclosed, without seeing the information itself, was it a phone number, address or something otherwise not public? I see the full name of the person who was allegedly doxxed posted by multiple other delegates who are not subject to suspension by this vote.
This lack of transparency makes the foundation look bad, hence why I feel the need to speak out. The foundation could say âhe posted this personâs private phone numberâ, or âhe posted their physical address/locationâ, or any kind of information to make it not look like a blatant witch hunt.
The vaugeness and lack of specifics surrounding the alleged violation, along with how its being publicly aired for the whole world to see is completely unacceptable, and relfects poorly on the entire collective.
1 Like
The community wonât back up the idea of voting âForâ when they canât confirm the dox.
And I agree with that conclusion and Abstained from voting even when I saw it firsthand before it was hidden. I abstained because I believe we need a better method for this.
Iâm not insisting on a fact, it is a fact. And the fact forced the foundation to follow the rules.
I canât see any sort of doxing in the links you provided, but you can follow the proper channels to report it. Please keep this talk on point, the debate is about doxing and how can we make a better system to apply the rules, I wonât engage in a harassment debate.
1 Like
Before this incident, my name was never mentioned in the Optimism forum or associated with Ethereum MĂ©xico.
I reported it as soon as it was first suggested by you, with no updates from the process or any signs of it being reviewed. Itâs sad to see you turn the other way when it comes to people and groups abusing their power against individuals, which is the common denominator here.
2 Likes
Sorry, Iâm a community member just like you. I donât get the reports so I have no idea what abuse of power or turnaround you think is happening here. And your user is chuygarcia.eth how can that be a dox? Honest question, trying to understand the logic.
Clarification, I am a GovNerd, and we have no access to these reports. Grants Council members either.
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 donât have to move at the same pace as governments as we build the new frontier.
Itâs unfortunate that this situation has become a distraction from the issues I was highlighting: Lack of impact/ alignment with OP and the potential for collusion the badgeholder nomination created.
I understand this is a personal issue for you @Gonna.eth and donât take offense to your insistence. I will point out that seeing that badge next to your name while you attack community members is not a great look for the collective, Grants Council and GovNerds.
I argued that someone who never showed alignment or impact for Optimism and only created a governance profile to accept a badge was cause for concern (spent 12 minutes in the forum). Youâre shaming new members because they only read 4 hours. Which one seems more unreasonable here?
I stand by my rebuttal on this case. Iâm not Snowden or Assange here. The rule is being used to obscure the real issues.
4 Likes
I really really hope so and that this is a one off thing.
If governance voting is playing referee to childish and petty bickering, it is a very bad value proposition for token holders long term.
Hence I feel strongly compelled to step in and say that things look to be heading on a bad trajectory, and that this needs to stop here, and now.
Edit3: Im stupid, removed some wrong info.
Really want to emphasize the âuse common senseâ part of the rules of engagement.
Going to link the Rules of Engagement for the Forums here re: Rules of Engagement 2.0 - 
Policies and Templates - Optimism Collective
If you read the Enforceability section of the Rules of Engagement, it appears that the foundation does have the power to directly give a one month suspension to someone that violates the Doxxing rules, without wasting the time of all the delegates and making them vote on something with no evidence.
Its silly that the Optimism Foundation decided to air out dirty laundry in an onchain vote, when they have the authority to issue an immediate ban to the person in violation, without going through the process of wasing the time of all the delegates
It clearly states âIf you make a claim of any kind, you should always provide proofâ. Members should not be harrassed in ways that violate the Code of Conduct by anyone, and the foundation should be included in that. If they are not going to publicly bring the evidence, they should not publicly bring the accusation
From the Code of Conduct on harrassment and making unsubstantiated claims:
It is clearly outlined in the Code of Conduct to lay out claims and criticism with clear supporting evidence, without personal opinion. It also states that making unsubstantiated claims is a form of harrasment.
Edit 2: Sharing this doesnât feel good for me, im actually really depressed from reading all this
My Opinion: The problem I have with all of this is the established procedure would have been to just ban the person doing the Doxxing, which the Foundation is empowered to do according to the rules of engagement
4 Likes
Uhm. Sorry if I offended in anyway, but I donât think that my tone was bad since Iâm only writing my doubts and want to understand the processes.
I hope that all of this that we write and read itâs for best practices and to make the more informed and robust community.
I suggest: This a Forum for a DAO and everything that I admire itâs that anyone can come and go whenever they want, and for me itâs going to be meaningful if any of you guys answer. Itâs great because you feel comfortable and welcomed.
5 Likes
I was referring to this when I mentioned the tone, thatâs on me. I should have expressed myself better.
2 Likes
I was out of line, its good that you checked me
Hi @EvmFinance, welcome to the forum, glad you are here 
Iâm 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.â 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 Carlosâ 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 donât 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 Carlosâ original concerns over the badgeholder distribution method, Iâll 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.
9 Likes
I express my support for the foundation here. It is challenging to find the perfect solution. It is absolutely important to adhere to due process. Empathizing, I understand that there are some outspoken individuals, and being in their position doesnât necessarily guarantee a definitive solution. Criticizing is always easy, but taking actual action is difficult.
3 Likes