Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/citynouns
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
After careful review, I’m voting NO on this proposal—not due to disagreement with its intent, but because its structure is premature, its assumptions unratified, and its language poses risks for a decentralized governance system still establishing its legitimacy. Reasons for NO: 1. Council Legitimacy: The proposal derives authority from a governance framework that lacks broad endorsement, making it difficult to accept ethical enforcement powers based on an unratified body. https://nouns.build/dao/base/0xdf4f168ba41c88ab4d0f1e2117110600c7e44b6d/54?tab=activity
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
SwarthyHatter
@swarthyhatter
2 Process Concerns: Proposals of this magnitude require extended deliberation and explicit review from diverse DAO members. This was posted swiftly, with limited opportunity for redline edits or compromise suggestions. 3 Enforcement Ambiguity: Terms like “egregious misconduct” and “guerilla literature” remain undefined, allowing for selective enforcement. 4 Narrative Control: Language concerning “official communications” and treatment of dissent could suppress open disagreement or alternative interpretations of the DAO’s values. 5 False Equivalence Between Style and Consent: A well-written proposal doesn’t equate to community consent. This vote should reflect that distinction. Recommendation: Pause this proposal and initiate an open collaborative process—possibly via a temporary working group or forum—to refine and ratify these values through open debate and redrafting.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
