HAUS Party LIVE! Season 4 Episode 4 (2/10/2022) Mirror Post

# HAUS Party LIVE! Season 4 Episode 4 (2/10/2022) Mirror Post ## Synopsis What is the importance of a constitution? How do we write these collective documents to represent a shared vision? How do we account for difference in perspective? How do we calculate social tensions? How do we reconile the importance of crafting open, inclusive communities with the oppressive censorship of traditional media outlets? This week we are asking practicing a humble disposition while asking some difficult questions. We invite you to contemplate these issues with us with love and respect. Welcome to 🎉 Haus Party Live 🎉 every Thursday at 2pm EST on the [DAOhaus Discord](https://discord.gg/daohaus) --- 🌱 Welcome to our *highly nuanced, subtly crafted, forever uncensored* garden! 🌱 ### DAOhaus Manifesto We just finished drafting [edition 0 of the DAOhaus manifesto.](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmS3KKyqirVBEjnd3Q8TbSqQHTP2fYur6qWb9JR9Fa2ffD?filename=daohaus-manifesto-v2.0.0.md) The process of working on the *Manifesto* has been an incredible experience on many levels. DAOs are starting to write documents that provide a sense of identity and cohesion. We think of our own manifesto as the mortar that binds the bricks of the community together. Here at DAOhaus, we maintain a tireless dedication to making sure that the community comes first, that people come before profits. This document is a product of numerous months of synchronous and asynchronous conversations about the principles that guide our vision. We define ourselves by focusing on the greater good. ### Process How might we organize the *chorus of voices* to speak for themselves and avoid a single person speaking on behalf of the many? We have tried to integrate the collective voice into the writing of this text by revisiting our own foundations. We began by assembling a document with ideas for the community to respond to, which seeded many parallel divergent conversations. This led to a series of Discord threads to foster collaborative conversations. Our team conducted a workshop to gather ideas from core contributors on their values, to demonstrate a democratic process to reflect the democratic intent of our DAO. The goal is to create a living document that will continue to evolve - in it's syntax, intentionality of word choices, and vibes - to reflect the core values as they continue to evolve. This is crucial to securing the inclusive DAO culture that we so strongly believe in. This manifesto should not be etched in stone, but reflect the changes and updates based on what is happening in the community. We believe its important for all communities to go through a similar process. DAOhaus has its own culture and ethos that hasn't been shared with the rest of the world yet. It makes us emotional to recognize the that we *can* and *do* align on the values outlined in our manifesto. The process has also stirred up some fresh perspectives for us. How do we legitimately build policy from intent? How do we evaluate processes of decision without transgressing our values? ## When Cultures Clash What happens when worldviews clash within the metaverse? How do our organized communities react and form policies around these tensions? We have conflicted feelings about social media censorship, even if it might seem warranted. Its troubling that Web2 companies are able to revoke access based on the decisions of a few people. Censorship is a losing game for the majority, but if we completely neglect communication constraints then there will always be voices saying potentially dangerous or inflammatory things. In a decentralized environment, communities have been known to fork over spicy issues. Are there forks that are more censorship resistant? ### Echo Chambers and Bad Actors Are people making echo chambers by avoiding conflicting viewpoints? It is incredible how quickly the conversation can turn towards censorship instead of focusing on the ill will that runs rampant in our human communities. Perhaps it's not the tools that are the problem, but how might we take collective responsibility for the "bad actors?" Undeniably, there are people in society that are perpetuating harm through their use of language. Some individuals seem aligned behind oppression and justify the harm they inflict in the name of a "greater good" or collective vision. Malignant, cynical oppressors use shared narratives of success to manipulate folks into creating legitimacy around their larger strategies. How will we choose to communicate and coordinate with the ignorant and the intentionally malignant? ### Game Theory, Power, and Schelling Points How does economic calculus play into this situation? Historically, enfranchised and entrenched powers become beligerant when society begins questioning the legitimacy of their position. Many disenfranchised citizens are experiencing this lack of power and oppression on a daily basis. Considering this framework, how should we consider cancel culture? There can be positive sum games, but this is difficult. Why is it that politics seems to melt away in crypto culture? Are we really creating space for new narratives and identifying a new source of truth through mutual cooperation? We hope to craft alternative power structures and build alternatives to what exists. DAOs and coordination mechanisms has provided an effective framework for perceiving issues emerging in the web3 community. In this context, decentralization really means *decentralization of power.* If we think of it like this, it becomes easier to think about our own relationships to power. Holding power beyond basic human necessity is a responsibility and a privilege. Power over other people, especially in a narrative or DAO context, is thought of as power being delegated to you either explicitly or implicitly. If the collective doesn't agree with how you're wielding that power, it is their right to revoke it. We can co-create better structures and define games that allow individuals to exercise their agency and autonomy by protecting their right to revoke delegated power. What does dissent look like? It can be frustrating to see how often people need to qualify their experiences and contextualize opinions with declarations of identity. It can also be difficult to deal with unintentionally becoming an oppressor even if actions are rooted in allyship. Polarization embedded in discussion tends to move folks into feeling as if they are oppressing the rights of others even if its not intentional. We're focusing on general coordination because we want to ensure that folks feel safe to coordinate with each other, but this also means recognizing local rights to identity, including anonymity. A productive outcome is impossible if we don't feel safe with each other. How do these ideas translate into action? We have all witnessed ideas communicated through communal means manifesting into individual and collective actions. Communication has power - for good and also for the worst - regardless of the intent of the speaker. We must be careful how we wield language! ### Conflict Resolution Strategies How might we teach each other to *call in* rather than *call out*? How does this relate to our orientation to cancel culture? *Calling in* is an act of love and respect. Calling in involves recognizing the fact that you are speaking with another human being and share values at some level of consideration. Extending an open invitation to the other is an active form of love and demonstrates an activated listening that may help whoever you're speaking with to realize their own use of harmful language. The invitation is a powerful action, but it does not completely alleviate the inevitable tension of identity in our human relationships. Engaging in a practice of *checking in* can help shift a dynamic from affirming identity to building relationship. We must remember to wield our own power with careful attentiveness. We want to encourage people to disagree *and* productively collaborate. We also understand that DAOs and related coordination tools are a highly mediated means of dealing with our social tensions. Dismissing the significance of identity is a grotesque exercise of privilege. How might we focus on coordinating in order to move beyond the baseline considerations of layer zero, beyond our self-interested considerations, and scale our collective awareness towards those oppressive technologies and concepts that affect us all without accidentally inflicting the violence of stripping away someone else's identity? How do our technological tools bring out different aspects of ourselves? --- Resources: - [Interrupting Bias: Calling Out vs. Calling In](http://www.racialequityvtnea.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Interrupting-Bias_-Calling-Out-vs.-Calling-In-REVISED-Aug-2018-1.pdf) - [The new DAOhaus Manifesto](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmS3KKyqirVBEjnd3Q8TbSqQHTP2fYur6qWb9JR9Fa2ffD?filename=daohaus-manifesto-v2.0.0.md)