Delegate Suspension: Fractal Visions

[lee0007]

@FractalVisions

All of the information that I shared was publicly available on Twitter, including the picture of the person and their name…

I almost missed this post ^^^

Was the Foundation @lavande provided with this information about the public identity?
What right of response/reply did @FractalVisions have before this became public?
Was there a mediation/conflict resolution process?
Is it common practice for support nerds to be frontline in identifying scams?
What routine communications do we have in place that reiterate CoC (i.e community calls &meeting agenda’s template)
What training do the frontline crew have in regard to CoC
What opportunities do frontline crew have to regularly discuss/question CoC?

I am sorry to the person who has reported here, but sans evidence, I have only questions about how the process works for both sides. There is a saying in our line of business “don’t trust, verify”

I also worry that IF the ONLY issue the foundation identified here is doxxing to have included references to other serious violations, such as racial discrimination, is irrelevant and effectively compounds the perceived seriousness of the breach.

Was evidence provided of age and racial discrimination?

Is it possible to hear directly from the person who reported the breach?
Would they care to share their real projects, work to date and successes? Typically with defamation of character should come a right of reply, which could be posted elsewhere in the forum.

EDIT: Can @system advise exactly what types of private/personal information was shared?
Are we talking about someone’s physical address (real risk to person), private email (real risk of harassment), a Twitter ID (public ID), Photo (public domain) or other types of personal info? I ask this because I see that the public profiles were shared with @FractalVisions and the fact that he did not hunt them out is a mitigating factor for me

[AxlVaz]

I share this opinion. It is what I have commented today in the SEELatam and Optimismo Español government call. There was no right to defense and “the adaptation of the commoner’s report” is modified by a third party, in this case it seems to be a member of the optimism foundation that we do not know and we do not know what role he plays. There is a lack of context!

I do not justify at all what @FractalVisions did, but it is not a fair way to proceed and to be so non-transparent.

[Axel_T]

Very well said, by lee0007.

I have little insight into what has actually occurred in this case, but the issues raised by Lee point to flaws in the reporting, conciliation, information dissemination, and suspension processes, that has resulted in a lack of procedural fairness being offered to Fractal Visions.

Further, delegates are being asked to pass judgement in the Vote without the full information that could reasonably allow a high-impact decision like this to be confidently made.

[salman]

Agree that intentional doxxing is very harmful and can cause a lot of distress for the person being doxxed even if everything is available in the public domain, but abstaining from the vote as not enough information has been provided (understandable circumstances)

[Update]
Given circumstances - in cases like this,
One suggestion would be to share said documentation/evidence with independent delegates or trusted members of the community who can vouch for it, or some kind of workaround which could minimize the blind trust delegates have to put on the foundation

[Joxes]

At SEED Latam, we hosted our 11th OP Governance Call, and we decide to vote YES for the Fractal Vision suspension as delegate.

During the call, our collaborators and community members expressed our opinion on the case. We can include it in the following points:

• First, intentional and deliberate doxxing is BAD even in the circumstances in which this case is presented. We agree that the code of conduct applies.

• Second, the foundation should look for the means so that the decision can be made with less opacity from the point of view of the delegate/voter.

About evidences

In this case, the defendant has admitted his fault, for which reason it can be considered sufficient. However, as @lee0007 and our contributor pointed out @AxlVaz above, there is not enough information about what the exact accusation regarding doxxing is and how the process was carried out between the different parties. We recognize showing the complete evidence also implies a doxxing by default, but better information about the rest of the case should be provided in a more detailed way (timing, structured comments of the accuser and defendant, etc.).

How to improve the proccess

For these cases of complaints against delegates, the process should be more linear between the accusation, the mediation process and the vote. For specific cases of doxxing, although initially handled by the Foundation, it would be nice if a trusted third party designated by governance could verify this information if it’s impossible to make it public.

About the initial complaint

The complaint of potential fraud shouldn’t be underestimated and we encourage community members to investigate these suspicions, even if it’s not, for the moment, a direct competence of the governance.

Message for the accused

We hope @FractalVisions can learn from their mistakes and come back when the suspension period is over.

[system]

Hi everyone, good to see the engagement on this thread. We’d like to clarify our role in the Code of Conduct process.

As outlined in the Code of Conduct, the Foundation plays a purely administrative role in this process and does not adjudicate whether violations have occurred. When a report is filed through the reporting forms linked in the Code of Conduct, we verify the following:

1. That a specific violation of the Code of Conduct has been properly identified (i.e. Violation #10a); and
2. That sufficient evidence to prove a plausible violation has been provided such that someone (i.e. the Token House) can make a judgment as to whether the violation occurred.

If a submitted report meets the above two criteria, it will move forward and follow the enforcement process outlined in the Code of Conduct.

To address concerns expressed about this specific instance:

• Reporting process

  • The violation was reported using the process outlined in the Code of Conduct; it was not reported to the support NERDs. The Foundation only reviews reports that are reported using the appropriate reporting form linked in the Code of Conduct.

• Specific violation

  • The severe violation that has been reported is doxxing and this vote pertains to that specific violation of the Code of Conduct. We included the full report text, as authored by the reporter, edited as minimally as possible for understandability. This includes references to other violations, which we have not edited out, to limit active involvement on our part.
  • As we outlined in the proposal, the violation that is up for vote relates to doxxing. You do not need to consider any other violations.

• Evidence

  • As outlined in the proposal, the reporter included sufficient evidence to prove a plausible violation, including 6 files documenting the doxxing (full pictures of the reporter’s face) as well as screenshots of conversations substantiating the doxxing. In cases such as doxxing, the Foundation does not make public the evidence that was submitted without the reporter’s consent in order to protect their privacy. The definitions of doxxing that we use can be found here: Guidance on Severe Violations.

• Notice

  • Fractal Visions was privately given notice in advance of the proposal being posted. They were told that a report had been filed and a proposal for their suspension would go to a vote.
  • Fractal Visions had and continues to have the opportunity to respond in the relevant forum post.
  • We do not run a mediation or conflict resolution process, as that goes beyond our role as neutral administrator. We are open to suggestions for adjusting or better establishing a notice period and public response norms.

• Please remember that the suspension is temporary and lasts for a period of three months. Additionally, voting is not mandatory. Any delegates that do not feel they have sufficient information or are uncomfortable voting on this proposal may abstain.

We welcome suggestions for alternative methods of enforcing the Code of Conduct that reduce or eliminate the Foundation’s role in the process while also minimizing governance overhead. The Foundation is not an arbiter and does not adjudicate whether violations occurred, and given that we are moving towards decentralization, we don’t believe the Foundation should temporarily implement and administer an onerous governance process around adjudication.

[Ejrv78]

Yes, I think that first it would be to investigate well and then make a vote if the project should be punished as such. I think that he carried out an analysis before doing what he did, I think that he should have an opportunity to defend himself. since fractal visions has shown in its path that it has always supported many projects, you know we are all human and can make mistakes, I think that it should be given a new opportunity since the community has always shown support for its project, nothing more to say, I hope this is resolved as it is fair thanks

[Mark.eth_De.Fi]

Fractal Vision did make certain mistakes, in my opinion. And above he wrote about it and apologized (read the very beginning of this proposal)
But I think this punishment is not quite justified, under the conditions that we see that have developed and misunderstanding

[TheDoctor]

I understand that if rules have been violated, there should be consequences, especially in sensitive areas such as identity. However, I’d like to emphasize two points:

First, there is a climate of distrust surrounding potential Sybil attacks, malicious actors,etc. which may lead to mistakes like the one fractalvision might have made. We need to consider whether there is a suitable mechanism for escalating these suspicions so that we can avoid this kind of situations.

Second, I hope that after the banned period, fractalvision will become an active member of the community again. I believe that we need more people like him for their valuable contributions.

[FractalVisions]

We are back in full swing now and more optimistic than ever !!!

This mishap is not going to keep us down.
We feel that the process could be much better when it comes to the foreseeable future of the governance.

Hopefully everyone has learned a valuable lesson. I know we have!

[TheDoctor]

I’m really glad to see you guys back.

[FractalVisions]

We have voted during the current cycle on Optimism Governance. While it occurred to me that we may also be voting for officials who decided to vote for our suspension earlier this year.

It is now something we are trying hard to overcome with the way our project is perceived by many individuals since the suspension occurred.

This has been very difficult to overcome & feel as if it has damaged us in a way that made grant council reviews in cycle 14 & 15 bias towards our Builders Grant being approved.

We looked back into some of the comments from the vote of our suspension and wanted to share some of the comments we received that are relevant to the discussion here.

Example 1

“ I’ve only known Fractal Visions to be a positive member of the community

• Fractal Visions has apologised strenuously and followed earlier given directions, and has sought out to reconcile with the claimant.

• Fractal Visions has voluntarily offered to remove himself from the forum & Discord for 3-months.

• Apparently(?) all shared information was already publicly available, so does this even qualify as intentional doxxing? Further to this, is this really an attack with a perpetrator and victim or just a personal dispute that has escalated?

• I’ve only been involved in crypto governance for around a year or so, but I’ve seen some shocking behaviour by individuals and groups. This is the first time I’ve ever seen behaviour singled out for suspension. So why does other awful and/or destructive behaviour go unpunished yet this gets pulled up?

• On top of the above bullet point and in conclusion, I believe there is a lack of conclusive information about the case (only anon claims and general summaries) and this leads me to want to Abstain. However, since most of the community has leant towards voting For, and I have decided to vote Against to try and balance things out and overtly display the inconclusive reality here. Irrespective of the outcome, I hope all parties take heed of lessons that can be drawn from this case, and that we get better at working together for the mutual benefits of Optimism and us as community members. “

Example 2

“ We choose to abstain from voting on Fractal Visions’ Delegate Suspension Proposal. Although the Delegate Code of Conduct classifies intentional doxxing as a severe offense and the Optimism team received six files supporting the claim, Fractal Visions has not directly denied doxxing, only stating that they collected public information.

Without access to the evidence, it is impossible to verify the extent of the doxxing. In the absence of evidence beyond the unknown reporter’s word and the accused’s forum replies, we don’t feel it’s appropriate to vote for or against suspension.

Moving forward, we support forming a trusted DAO subcommittee for impartial verification and evidence protection, promoting a transparent and trustworthy process. By abstaining, we encourage the community to reevaluate the current process and consider implementing a more reliable and transparent system for delegate suspension proposals. “

Our question is for @lavande today on this topic.

If the members of the grants council also voted for our suspension would there be a conflict of interest on the decision being made ?

We see that both @jackanorak & @Gonna.eth who were on the grants council during cycle 14 & 15 which is why this is concerning to us due to the reason that they both had a major role in deciding whether we received the builders grant.

After cycle 14 our grant did not pass so we resubmitted and again were denied from receiving funding in cycle 15 by 0.5 points from the required rubric score. This was after receiving feedback from cycle 14 and making many major improvements to our proposal prior to submitting to cycle 15.

Is there any sort of rules in the CoC that states a if a grants council member votes on a suspension of a delegate who is also applying for a grant they should abstain?

It’s very hard for us to see any difference in corroborating between the grant council members who both voted for our suspension as well. Hopefully the collective governance will take this into consideration as we continue to look back in retrospect to the experience and pain that this has caused to our team over the course of the year.

This account is managed and maintained by both cofounders of Fractal Visions and does not represent a single person from our project.

@lavande also stated recently that we were not barred from participating in the mission or intents program but it was impossible for us to apply to join these programs due to our suspension from the governance forum.

Applications for grants had not yet moved to Charmverse either so we were barred from participating in applications for builder or growth experiments grant opportunities as well during the 3 month timeframe that our project was banned from the ecosystem.

Is there any way to get the records of our suspension removed or burned from the system?

We do not feel as if it is fair to us or our fellow teammates to have to wear this badge of shame from the rest of the delegates of the collective.

Especially when seeing the community come out in the most recent CoC violation that was brought up against @Carlosjmelgar …

Why is it that we are to be permanently shamed by the collective of Optimism for something that obviously did not show all the necessary information to the decision makers prior to the voting process ?

We asked to voluntarily remove ourselves from the governance for the 3 month timeframe but the suspension vote was forced upon us with no time to respond to our choice.

As you can see here from dates that were given to us while there is no specific clarification from @lavande on a specific date when we needed to respond in order to volunteer our resignation from being a delegate. It just says (Wednesday, 19:00 GMT) which is very vague and beat around the bush when it comes to clearly communicating a deadline for such an instance.

We were not given a fair chance to decide thus the forced vote that led to our suspension.

It’s really a big deal for our team the more that we evaluate what happened compared to how the most recent CoC violation for suspension was dealt with recently.

Is there some sort of favoritism that @Carlosjmelgar is receiving because he is also a team member of Gitcoin staff for instance?

We are trying to understand why our names had to be dragged through the dirt. Despite all of this we have doubled down our efforts to build on Optimism over the past 12 months showing the ultimate commitment that has been made towards expanding the public goods ecosystem. Fractal Visions has also spent over $20,000 of our own personal funding to build a platform focused on impact makers. We are very excited for 2024 on Optimism and nothing is going to stop us from achieving our goals !!!

We would like to know what is possible in order to get these records removed from the system by abolishing them from the history of governance. Is that something that can be done through a proposal ?

[lavande]

Hi @FractalVisions -

Responding to your comments below:

This has been very difficult to overcome & feel as if it has damaged us in a way that made grant council reviews in cycle 14 & 15 bias towards our Builders Grant being approved.

• I will let @danelund.eth detail the process by which grants were approved or rejected, while noting that it is very serious to make these claims against candidates for the Grants Council during an ongoing election

Is there any sort of rules in the CoC that states a if a grants council member votes on a suspension of a delegate who is also applying for a grant they should abstain?

• There was no such rule in place at the time of this vote; Grants Council members are required to evaluate grants based on the merits of the application in an unbiased manner. There will not be similar votes in the future, so it does not make sense to consider this at this point. (As a reminder, the Delegate Suspension vote took place before Grants Council members were elected for Season 4.)

We were not given a fair chance to decide [on resignation] thus the forced vote that led to our suspension.

• I apologize if there was any confusion; I thought that specifying both the end of the review period and the day and time was specific enough. Clarification was not requested until four days later. The Foundation tried to implement a reasonable process while responding in real time to the first severe violation of the Code of Conduct and resulting delegate suspension vote.

Is there some sort of favoritism that @Carlosjmelgar is receiving because he is also a team member of Gitcoin staff for instance?

• This is an unsubstantiated claim, which is a violation of the Rules of Engagement, please refrain from further violations. The Foundation follows the same procedure with all Code of Conduct reports to the best of our ability, although there are some variables such as the timing of when reports are filed within the review periods. It is productive to provide feedback on your own experience; it is counterproductive and inappropriate to make unsubstantiated claims about other Optimists.

Is there any way to get the records of our suspension removed or burned from the system?

• The vote occurred on-chain, so there is an on-chain record. Information about the suspension does not live anywhere else.

[danelund.eth]

Can you help explain the conflict? Is it not the case that delegates voted on the proposal in the course of governance, separate from the role on grants council and prior to any proposal being made?

“Applications for grants had not yet moved to Charmverse either so we were barred from participating in applications for builder or growth experiments grant opportunities as well during the 3 month timeframe that our project was banned from the ecosystem.”

From a process perspective, it would be of interest if the partners could confirm that the primary reason that they did not put forward a grant proposal during this period was a lack of access to Discourse or other governance features.

[FractalVisions]

The conflict is with the grant council members who reviewed & denied our grant over and over in cycle 14 & 15 after our 3 month suspension was up. It has been taken into consideration that we were denied from receiving any grant funding from Optimism due to Grant council review members who also voted for our suspension. It would be unfortunate if the reason our team was denied funding is related to their views on our CoC violation in any way, shape, of form.

Let’s be clear that the votes from the grants council review took place after our suspension was served and access to the governance forums, discord had been restored.

Should we request a new set of council review members in the future if the same delegates are assigned to our grant for the review process?

Or is this going to be dealt with internally to reassure that grants will be distributed in a fair manner?

@danelund.eth

From a process perspective, it would be of interest if the partners could confirm that the primary reason that they did not put forward a grant proposal during this period was a lack of access to Discourse or other governance features.

Correct Due to our account being suspended from the forums here during season 12 & 13 we were unable to participate in grant applications via OP Gov forums. Including the Mission/Intent applications.

[danelund.eth]

You are saying that is the primary reason you were unable to apply for Builders and growth as well, correct?

[FractalVisions]

Correct. The application for builders & growth grants took place on the governance forums which our account was suspended from using. If this is incorrect please let us know.

[danelund.eth]

I’m trying to confirm what you are saying, which I believe is that you intended to make a builders or growth application on the forum during the suspension period but were prevented from doing so, right?

[FractalVisions]

That’s true. Yes. Beyond this fact is the question of the denial coming into play on our grant applications for cycle 14 & 15 once the suspension was over. Which was decided by members of the governance who also voted “For” our suspension.

[FractalVisions]

@lavande

I apologize if there was any confusion; I thought that specifying both the end of the review period and the day and time was specific enough. Clarification was not requested until four days later. The Foundation tried to implement a reasonable process while responding in real time to the first severe violation of the Code of Conduct and resulting delegate suspension vote.

The way we were dragged into a suspension vote was very unfair and occurred in a very unusual way.

The timeframe that was given is not comparable to that of due process. There was not adequate time given to make a response.