Discussion:Discord Policy

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions

Green Dragon (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2018 (MST)

The basis for policies on D&D Wiki's official discord server has been layed out with this discussion. Consensus may change, so please include any policy referendums for the discord server on this page. Any policy discussions must take place here, since policy discussions on discord do not have any bearing for the server.

Varkarrus (talk) Official Discord Server link location14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)

I feel the link to the D&D wiki's discord server is a little hidden away right now. It took me a while to find the community portal on the main page; I don't think I'd ever noticed that link before. Meanwhile, the currently very underused Tavern Chatroom is displayed on the navigation and on the main page. Personally, I think the link to the Tavern Chatroom could be outright replaced with the link to the discord server, though I have no problems with it remaining where it is. It's not unusual for a wiki community to have a discord server that's proudly displayed with a large logo; take for instance the D&D 5e wikia.

I should say why this could be important. When looking at the tavern chatroom logs, some of the most recent messages as of this writing are variants of "is anybody there?" spread out over a week. Most recently, a newcomer asks if the Tavern is always this empty, and then they're given the link to the official discord.

Since a newcomer's first experience with trying to join the D&D wiki community's chatroom will almost certainly be the tavern chat (as it is more prominently displayed), they may get a false idea of how active the community is, which may discourage them. Varkarrus (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2018 (MST)

• A screenshot of the tavern chatroom messages I was talking about

BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2018 (MST)

I too have thought this for other things. I am use to communities prominently displaying a Discord server link as well, along with their other pages though. Maybe a bigger discussion if those get brought up.

Green Dragon (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Something like this? We could add this to the Main Page, as well as on the sidebar (if anyone knows if its possible to add an image to Mediawiki:Sidebar, otherwise it can be added below it like the FB was before) if we can agree on doing this.

BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2018 (MST)

That link is beautifully! Hope others agree with its addition to the sidebar.

— Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:21, 16 December 2018 (MST)

i agree

—ConcealedLight (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Looks good to me. Let's add it.

— Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:28, 16 December 2018 (MST)

This looks like consensus to me, so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing.

Varkarrus (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Awesome! Thanks

BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2019 (MST)

Announcing Featured Article Nominees in the #Announcements channel

As someone continually wanting to drive traffic to these pages, are there objections to sharing a link to the FA page letting Discord users know these discussion are waiting for input. At the very least, posting there once a month-I'd prefer to ping @everyone when that happened. Extra posts would be to put out a new article has been nominated, but @everyone wouldn't be used for that, just the (proposed) monthly one. So yeah...thoughts?

That seems like a reasonable use for the #announcements channel as it doesn't get much use. Though I believe it should act as more of a feed when a new article is added and only pinging the relevant system as not all users will find updates for other systems they don't know interesting. Other then that I support the general idea. —ConcealedLight (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2019 (MST)

No objections here. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:38, 19 February 2019 (MST)

Good Idea to use relevant system pings CL. I’ll post in announcements soon and if someone thinks it’s not good I’ll adjust. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (MST)

Makes sense. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

— Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)

Political Discussion on the Server

RedHawk007 brought up that political discussion is something that tends to spark arguments and flame wars, and he proposed implementing a "no politics" rule on that basis, and other users have expressed similar sentiments, which I can understand and appreciate after myself having gotten into a heated political debate a couple of days ago. We already have a rule that says "Be respectful of other users and their opinions" and "obey the wiki's Behavioral Policy", but this becomes a really easy rule to break with how divisive and black and white politics has become. What are people's thoughts on implementing this "no politics" rule, or if this becomes something that some people really want to discuss, adding a "politics quarantine" channel so that people that don't want to get involved never have to look at it? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:35, 22 March 2019 (MDT)

I'm personally ok with political discussion. But I've seen on the discord how people probably have muted the discord or never looked to it because of political discussions that dragged on and on. If it makes people that uncomfortable, then I'm also ok with "no politics".--Yanied (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2019 (MDT)

A quarantine sounds like a good idea. Free speech and the exchange of ideas are important and i think the arguing won't end just because politics is forbidden to argue about. Everything can be political, after all, so it just becomes a veiled discussion about something else with politics at heart. Like arguing about if certain races are chaotic evil or not and talking about the ingame consequences of issues like this. "If Kobolds are evil by nature, i think genocide against them is justified." Better to have something that can contain the various discussions that can be safely ignored. --Kara (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2019 (MDT)

While I am fine with polite discussions, some users have shown that they simply cannot maintain a civil conversation. Chat Moderators should be within their right and not afraid to hand out warnings or mutes for conversations that threaten to get out of hand. Toxic behaviour has already driven several people out of the discord server and I'd hate to see more go because of a few bad apples. The server should first and foremost be about D&D - all other topics have second place and they shouldn't threaten the integrity of the wiki itself. I'm not a fan of 'quarantine' channels as "#adult topics" (I believe it was called that) simply did not work. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (MDT)

This is going to sound shocking coming from me of all people, but I fully agree with the idea of forbidding any political discussion. Quarantine channels, in my opinion, don't work. As pointed out before, some of us can't discuss things with civility, and I honestly don't think a quarantine channel would really help that much in that regard. It would just keep all the incivility in one area, which would just cause it to inevitably spill out into the rest of the server. The last thing we need is this server suffering the same fate as the previous. To those who want to discuss politics and support the idea of a quarantine channel: That's what DMs are for (direct messages, that is. Not dungeon masters. *winkity wink*) --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (MDT)

I'm frankly surprised this is even a controversy or a debate. I'm all for a "no politics" rule. If people want to whine and moan about IRL politics, then there are a million more relevant places on the internet to do it than, y'know, an apolitical hobby-related chat for discussing games. Or even better, they can get off the freaking computer for once in their lives and try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber. Just saying. Based Quincy (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)

"try talking to real people with real opinions instead of seeking validation from an online echo chamber." *combination of my laughter from how you wrote that along with some MLG airhorns* --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

Okay so I was fine with banning political discussion at first but I've changed my mind. Better to create a quarantine channel for it. Because inevitably, something is going to come up where a user needs to voice their concerns, but can't because their concerns are "political." For instance, discussing whether or not hate speech should be banned on the discord server? That's a political discussion. So, no. There should be a ban on uncivil / bad faith discussion instead.Varkarrus (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

There's a problem with a blanket ban on political discourse, that I just realized now. The thing is, it's impossible for anything to be truly apolitical. And frankly, D&D as a hobby hasn't been apolitical for a long time. Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical? And wouldn't banning discussion on that, in turn, be a political statement? Now, I'm all for a ban on, say, whether or not human lives have inherent merit; frankly that shouldn't be a discussion anyways. I'm an ardent supporter of banning hate speech in general. I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense. But, there are going to be times when people will have legitimate concerns and banning them from raising those concerns on the basis that it's "too political" is, in itself, a political statement. Varkarrus (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT) Varkarrus (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

No, not everything is political unless you subscribe to some preposterous culturally marxist notion there is no place for a non political private space nor such a thing as a political non-combatant. I find it kind of strange and disturbing that people seem to try to push that mentality these days.

"Would discussing the harsh reality of women being discriminated against in D&D meetups be considered apolitical?" - That is a loaded statement with a debatable premise. And no, demanding political change - which is what you are implying you wish to do - is by definition not apolitical.

Now you've brought "hate speech" into the conversation. I am ardently opposed to banning hate speech, because the problem with banning so-called "hate speech" is that restricting the voices of a handful of people you disagree with is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to abuse in the name of safety. In my experience, banning and punishing any form of speech is almost always used by dubiously motivated individuals to silence opinions that they subjectively deem "improper" which is not only immoral but a form of intellectual tyranny.

"I also feel that some people make arguments in bad faith and people can get suckered into participating in them at their own expense" - Yeah, because those people who take the bait are idiots. No-one is forced at gunpoint to engage into an open, public conversation. Based Quincy (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

So... wait, just to be clear... you're saying you want to ban political discourse, but not hate speech?? Also, calling those people who take the bait "idiots" is ignoring how insidious bad faith arguing can actually be. Again: see The Card Says Moops. Very relevant. Varkarrus (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my stance. Hate is an emotion. The "Hate speech" buzzword can be invoked for anything tangientably related to an emotion. What is and is not a political statement, on the other hand, is objective. Based Quincy (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

Well, if you've got a problem with the hate speech ban, go take it up with rule 1 on the D&D wiki discord server. Start a discussion, try and get it removed, whatever. I really don't think you'll get much support for that, though. I don't see why we should unban hate speech but not cussing. Varkarrus (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

I am against a banket ban on political themes, just since that will make a very many users have a directly bad experience with the server when they "accidentally" receive a warning.

I propose that we amend the admin roles on the server, to give the role the power to demand that a topic stops being posted when it's political (per the admin's choice). If the conversation continues, then of course we would use warnings. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

I don't trust that discord admins would necessarily be able to be "partisan" here, deciding which topics do or do not fall under the blanket ban. Rather, a conversation that has the potential to be heated can be moved to a quarantine, and then only step in if the conversation does become heated. Varkarrus (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

I do trust discord admins to decide when a topic is getting out of hand. They were elected for a reason - to uphold the face of the wiki. Topics inciting hate have no place here and neither do heated discussions in which half of the participants act like children. The DanDwiki is not your personal platform for spreading your political agenda. The only 'Quarantine' that exists here is your DMs. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

I think it's pretty easy to tell when a topic is "getting out of hand". It's not rocket science. Heck, and I'm saying that as someone who has probably made some of the most incendiary comments on the discord and caused some discussions to actually go into that "getting out of hand" territory. However, I'll bite - Maybe a "blanket ban" is a bit too much, but if I swear if I see another spat over alignment and racism again... --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

Okay so thing is, what you just brought up is EXACTLY the reason WHY a blanket ban won't work. To recap: Off-topic comments removed. So, a blanket ban on political discourse would essentially be saying "Hey, Vark, this concern you're having? That you feel something is (admittedly in this case, mildly) racist? You're not allowed to talk about it," which in turn is a political stance. It sets a scary precedent. What if something more overt happens in the future? Say someone creates a page that's blatantly racist (like, say, a race that strongly resembles a caricature of a real-world race) to some, but maybe just enough people (which may include the creator) don't immediately realize it's racist and it slips under the radar. Would they not be allowed to raise their concerns over it? Personally, I believe they should, as long as the argument remains civil. Atmittedly, my memories of the argument are Kinda Fuzzy by now, but during that argument I repeatedly tried to find a good compromise. I also tried to understand why my opponents were opposed to my concerns, and was upset because I had multiple concerns and I felt they were being ignored. I was also upset because a lot of people were making fun of me for my concerns, and the whole argument was being treated like a sideshow. In the end, I did appeal to their reasons ("because D&D lore") by using the exact terminology from the D&D race descriptions of alignment, where the strongest wording used is "tends towards X," which means I got exactly what I want, and in a way that I guess was fine with everyone else. A compromise, but even better, really, since Everyone Wins, No Concessions Needed. That would not have happened if I was not allowed to raise my concerns. The race would still use wording I disliked, and I would be unable to do anything about it. It's impossible to make this space apolitical because right wing and left wing ideology influences A LOT of what we say, do, and believe. If you put right wing and left wing people in a room together, those ideologies are going to clash, even if the topic of politics isn't explicitly brought up. So, if you want an echo chamber / safe space where you can avoid left wing ideology, you'd have to go to a community completely devoid of left wing folks. Varkarrus (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

Your entire argument became a moot point as soon as you mentioned 'civil discussion'. You are the first person to come to mind when I think of "People who cannot keep a discussion civil". The fact that you are writing out the entire Marilith discussion again in an attempt to push your original points in said discussion speaks for itself. This is not a platform to push your agenda, this is a discussion about politics and D&D. If people can hold a civil discussion about politics, that would be cool. The sad truth, however, is that some users (including yourself) cannot remain civil in a discussion, turning the whole thing into a 'sideshow' as you call it. That's the last I'm willing to say about it as there is no reasoning with you. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

I just went back and reread the whole "hate speech" debate. Which wasn't even a debate I wanted to participate in. It's true, the part where I dismissed MSO's argument by posting a screenshot of how I had him blocked WAS pretty rude of me. I apologize for that. But, like, that argument WAS getting heated ON both sides, and it SHOULD have stopped a while ago. But in terms of actual attacks? that was on you guys. I never attacked you, or Redhawk. The worst insult I gave either of you was when I said "yea you're right, debating with someone whose views aren't gonna change is a pretty silly waste of time" which was as much an attack on myself as it was on you. Beyond that, I never called you toxic, or immature, nor accused either of you of being able to converse like a normal human being. The FACT that protecting hate speech apparently even WAS a topic of discussion led to a user feeling uncomfortable and leaving the discord, because as it turns out, extreme right wing ideology tends to make people feel unsafe. As such, I do feel there should be a quarantine so people who don't want to participate can mute the channel, and moderators should step in when discussion gets heated. Maybe we can figure out what specific topics are so incendiary that they shouldn't even begin? As a potential starting point for any such list I'd agree to not to bring up punching nazis, egging islamaphobes, or eating the rich if we as a community can also agree to not to defend viewpoints that fall under the "content of a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nature" part of rule #1 of the discord, which would include "protecting hate speech." Anyways, since that's the last you're willing to say on the topic, I'm fine with accepting my culpability in the heatedness of that particular discussion. Varkarrus (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

I really have no idea what type of consensus is being discussed. It seems like some users have an agenda which we are not discussing. This discussion is about how we want to, if and when, offer a policy to censor posts on discord. The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

"The proposal which most users find appealing is to allow admins to require a topic to stop being discussed, as a means to defer from political heat." This is the proposal I wholly stand behind. Maybe we can start a fresh discussion by putting the indentation back to one with that proposal? -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 13:23, 26 March 2019 (MDT)

"...women being discriminated against in D&D meetups..." As the ancient Hawaiians used to say... --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

Just because you've never seen it (or chosen to ignore it) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. all. the. time. A quick google search turns up thread after thread of women talking about their experiences with sexism over the past decade. So there's your citation. Sure, it's not a universal experience, but it's an all-too common one. That's not the topic of discussion right now, though. Varkarrus (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

"That's not the topic of discussion right now, though" Then why respond in the first place? --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

Please, neither of you continue this conversation thread. This is a discussion about whether users should be trusted to remain civil with one another when discussing political topics, not about discrimination of any sort in the TTRPG community. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Please, stay on topic and help the community reach a consensus. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 01:02, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

I understand. My apologizes. --MetalShadowOverlord (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

I agree with Green Dragon's words on this. My thoughts and feelings but in much less words. ~ BigShotFancyMan 08:47, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

Discord Moderators

Discord Moderators
Sort of in line with Geodude671 post above, moderators. Admins are automatically bestowed with moderator rights. Mods would help make sure respect is given to users. Geodude is the most available admin/mod on the Discord, followed by CL then myself. Even with some of our availability we really only answer SRD/balance questions. I think using the Wiki to have a Request for Moderator (or whatever is deemed) would be helpful. Users like ConcealedWife are already trying to do these things on Discord, and perhaps being a mod would bestow help to those trying to keep the peace.

I've actually been toying with this idea for some time now. While I'm in no way experienced enough (nor do I currently aspire) to be an admin, I would be interested in becoming a discord chat moderator. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (MDT)

I think this would be very beneficial, though we'd need to work out specifics. I personally think ConcealedWife and Yanied would be good candidates for the first non-admin moderators.

Should Discord moderators also get mod privileges in the tavern chat? It's probably not necessary with how low activity in the tavern is, but it could be nice to have. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:47, 23 March 2019 (MDT)

I don't see why not. I can see how that would be helpful. Based Quincy (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (MDT)

I agree that this makes sense. To grant users these rights we will need a similar process to an RfA. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

Chanting: "rFm! rFm!". All jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind being the first to go through this process once we reach consensus. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 07:21, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

I can get behind this protocol. But the specifics will need to be fleshed out before anyone gets too excited. --Yanied (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (MDT)

went bold and created D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation. Hopefully the discussion page can be a good place to discuss criteria and considerations for this process. ~ BigShotFancyMan 09:00, 27 March 2019 (MDT)

Just to sorta start the ball, I would suggest that a mod be able to mute users and change roles. Kicking and warning users, and creating/deleting channels might be better reserved for admins. When I picture a mod, I imagine someone to quell disagreements and intermediate. And I don't mean to imply that admins are better people or have better judgement than what a mod would. Just the idea of mod from my experience has monitored chat. I am sure other servers mods can do more, which feel free to discuss. I am just pushing the ball. wooooooooooooo! ~ BigShotFancyMan 10:18, 12 April 2019 (MDT)

Further pushing that ball after it's been still for a bit, I feel a chat mod should do just what is relevant to chat. So I don't find the monitoring of roles a necessary role for them, just the ability to mute users or maybe issue limited warnings (though it is understandable if that is not possible).--Yanied (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

I am against this on a number of grounds:
1) Especially with me now in the Discord (P.S. GD I need admin role there whenever it's convenient for you), there are plenty of admins in the server. Me, CL, Geodude and BSFM are all active daily.
2) Giving special roles to users was one of the things that cause strife in the other server. Giving special privileges? I think that sends the wrong message.
3) Just to compound the two above, there is no need to give special moderator privileges to users just for the sake of it.
4) Frankly, CW's involvement in this sends the wrong message IMO. I quite honestly worry about the implications of her and CL both having moderation privileges, given their past history. But I will concede part of this might be latent distrust over my history with CW. If anyone believes that is the case, ignore this point.
5) I also worry about the precedent this sets, considering that the Discord server's "constitution" limits the servers' autonomy and ability to set its own policies. In my opinion, this would be a gross overstep of the server's bounds. Though the ramifications would theoretically be contained to Discord, history has shown that too much power in Discord has the side-effect of harming D&D Wiki. We've all witnessed this, unfortunately :( --GamerAim (2:0) (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

I agree that there are indeed plenty of admins in the server already.

I'll take this opportunity to say that, based on continued patterns of "lashing out" over Discord (both the current server and its precedent), I believe GamerAim should not be made an admin on the D&D Wiki discord server even if he retains admin status and good graces on the wiki proper. To be entirely candid, there is no one I would trust less with the privilege. - Guy 18:06, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

Guy is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but there has been no "lashing out," unless Guy means a single heated discussion we had over a miscommunication. There has otherwise been no real incidents of note before or since. In fact, I was quite open with the server in confronting the elephant in the room and we all agreed to move forward in pursuit of a trusting relationship. I understand that Guy and I have a history of distrust, but as I said on Discord, I look forward to rebuilding our trust in each other. Naturally, I will otherwise avoid debating this particular topic (my adminship) unless requested, so as to avoid a conflict of interest. I know that we all have baggage, and I hope that this move will show that I am willing to turn over a new leaf and engage with my honored privileges as a trusted instrument of the community I love.--GamerAim (2:0) (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

I cannot help but say Guy's concern is valid but this is a conversation about moderation so please keep on topic. GA please make your request for administrative privileges through another topic or more preferably directly to GD. In the interest of continuing the conversation on moderation, you do not have to respond to this message. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

While there are normally several admins active at once and can deal with issues that arise, I will highlight the difference in timezones that I experience being in Europe as oppose to the United States. I often find that I'm on the only admin available until the day rolls on quite a bit and then administrators in the US of which the majority are, come online. Thus, in the event I am not available I believe it is reasonable to take on a chat moderator in order to increase the coverage and availability of the team. At the same time, I don't feel it would be fair to take on just one person in a test capacity and so I'll recommend that we take on two chat moderators, ideally one of them being in the European/Asian time zone range. This can be done initially in a test capacity and we can review their performance/ effectiveness after a month or two. In terms of what privileges they should have, I believe role management in order to verify users but also apply the Muted role to prevent spamming as well as naming management in order to enforce the wiki name usage. While I can see a case being made for kick/ban privileges the Muted role (which prevents users from interacting with the server and its channels) serves to put a bandaid on any issue for administrative review later and prevents a rogue moderator from doing something malicious like kicking/banning all other users. How does this sound? —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

I agree with you as well as Yanied's comment above. The ability to hand out (limited) warnings as well as a mute should be enough to keep the chat clean until an administrator shows up. I also agree that more than one moderator should be put into place for a test. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 04:51, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

There is still the matter of our user base being majority American and also well-behaved. I've not been active until recently, so I will refer to an admin I can trust there - like BSFM or Geodude - as to whether there have been many incidents while they were away. I think it's important to hear about the actual need for chat mods, first and foremost.--GamerAim (2:0) (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

The Discord simply needs a little help assigning roles, and a back up in case of spam. That’s why I don’t think mods being able to warn is necessary, and would hope that would ease some of Guy’s concerns. Quincy, Geodude, CL, Myself, And GamerAim I think do a good job but as people with RLs, some mods to assist in times we may be DMing, with Family, or saving the world, a mod to handle mutes and roles would be :Fire:

And again, I don’t think that admins are any better of people that makes them allowed to warn but it provides to overlap and consistency between Wiki and Discord. ~ BigShotFancyMan 06:48, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

You make a good point about verifying users. While I still don't believe it to be a huge issue, I would not have an issue with chat "moderators" that served this capacity if you believe it to be important, though I do believe that warnings and muting should be reserved for administrators, as it would be on D&D Wiki.--GamerAim (2:0) (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2019 (MDT)

do people still *bump*? Quite a bit was mentioned since April 2019. Are there any more thoughts? Hoping Green Dragon gets an opportunity to see this and respond at their convenience. ~ BigShotFancyMan 10:44, 19 June 2019 (MDT)

I still do occassionally. It would be good to get GD input on this as I believe there is a general consensus for it. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

I responded on D&D Wiki talk:Request for Moderation, and before it's fleshed out it's hard to speculate about what does and doesn't work. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

Can you define "fleshed out" because I am really confused. On the request for mod page you said to discuss the role and its permissions here on Discord Policy which occurred. There are about half a dozen users part of multiple discord servers that have offered an opinion here.

Is there anything you are looking for specifically about a moderator? Is there anything you have concerns about regarding the role?

Sorry, but this just doesn't help the conversation. :-/ ~ BigShotFancyMan 12:41, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

I mean that on the moderator nomination page all the points that have been discussed here need to be visible. Users need to know what the moderator is, as discussed on this page, before they can vote on the role. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2019 (MDT)

I would expect this role to at least state that's it granted alongside adminship, but it can be revocated without the adminship being done. I would also expect this role to list that they have the "admin role" on discord, and all the rights that brings. In addition moderators who are active at certain times should be listed in the nominations. There are probably more things that need to be added. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2019 (MDT)

As I mentioned on Discord, chat mods would not get the admin permission there, as there is a dedicated Chat Moderator role. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:13, 26 June 2019 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

To get us all aligned, these are the current permissions of a discord moderator and the justification/ thought behind each of them. The only permission a chat moderator has on the discord that other users do not is the ability to manage roles lower than there own and delete messages in discussion channels. This allows them to:

• Mangage Roles. Create, remove, edit and manage roles lower than there own.
  • This is so moderators can apply the Muted role to users that continuously behave poorly and works like the wiki's block function in that it doesn't remove the users' account but stops them from interacting with the wiki or in this case the discord.
  • This also allows them to apply game system specific roles to users like 5e and pathfinder or verify users removing there Anon role and replacing it with the user role.
• Manage Messages. Delete and pin the messages of other users.
  • Sometimes users will make comments that are far from appropriate and need to be removed. The message is still available for viewing in the history channel where admins can keep a record of it for review.
  • There isn't much reason to give them the ability to pin messages to a channel but this is bundled in with the above.

The limits of this power prevent them from:

• Creating, removing, editing and granting roles of higher standing than there own such as Administration, Channel Management, Server Management.
• Deleting messages from the history channel so they are not able to obscure there own infractions should such a case come up.

Hope that clears things up a bit and gets everyone on the same page. —ConcealedLight (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2019 (MDT)

In addition to the above permissions, chat moderators also have permission to use the ?mute command to stop a user from talking for a specified period of time.

When I originally created the chat moderator role on Discord, in addition to the permissions above, chat moderators also had the power to kick and ban users from the Discord. Users with the chat moderator permission on this site have the power to block users from the tavern chatroom only, so I felt that was a logical extension of that power, but I'd like to get others' feedback on this. They do not currently have this power, for the record.

Should admins have permission to preside over requests for moderation, similar to bureaucrats' power to preside over requests for adminship? They have the technical power to grant chat mod permissions to others both on the wiki and discord, and them having permission to do so would prevent the process from being too dependent on one person and creating a bottleneck. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:27, 30 June 2019 (MDT)

If the moderators could just mute, I think it fulfills roughly what they are supposed to do? I think they can maybe report or request onto admins for the whole boot and ban instead.--Yanied (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2019 (MDT)

I'm of the opinion that chat moderators shouldn't have the permission to kick/ban users and those requests should be passed on to administrators. I believe the point about administrators not requiring a bureaucrat to oversee the position is also valid given the limited scope of the role. —ConcealedLight (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2019 (MDT)

A chat moderator's roles are sufficient, they just need to be listed on D&D Wiki:Request for Moderation. So far everyone seems to agree.

I disagree that admins should be able to close a nomination, since there are many disputes between users and having a bureaucrat make the final decision would lessen any potential conflicts. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2019 (MDT)

Thank you Geo and CL for adding the chat moderator roles to the D&D Wiki: Request for Mod page, amongst numerous other edits and input. ~ BigShotFancyMan 13:08, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

I’m good with GD being the only bureaucrat. Their reasoning isn’t bad either. ~ BigShotFancyMan 15:20, 9 July 2019 (MDT)

I think having a final decider is good. That's what the final decision on an RfM right?--Yanied (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2019 (MDT)

We've already got a final decider but what was/is proposed is allowing admins to be final deciders too. I do understand Geo's points about it, I just think that leaving that reserved for bureaucrats only is good for the time being. If issues were to arise then I think it could be a topic to revisit. ~ BigShotFancyMan 06:38, 10 July 2019 (MDT)

I agree with this. While an admin holds more power in terms of what tools they can use, it would be best not to have administrators 'moderate' (To be able to shut down) an RfM. -- ᴄᴏɴᴄᴇᴀʟᴇᴅᴡɪғᴇ (Contributions) (Squa) 10:55, 10 July 2019 (MDT)

Great, I find that this policy has reached the point where we can start using it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2019 (MDT)

Name Verification

I'm in as Mononymous <nocode>#</nocode>7183.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:55, 13 July 2019 (MDT)

There’s actually a separate discussion page where you’re supposed to post that, but I’ve verified you regardless. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 00:32, 14 July 2019 (MDT)

Section for Admins

I was asked again today via DMs on Discord who admins are. Someone asked in casual or 5e channel last week, and I think it happened another time within the last month. Can we discuss adding a section, like almost every other Discord server, to show wiki admins? I understand having one list of users on Discord, because we are all users. Admins do have a separate page where they are listed though. You have to navigate to find it. If someone has an idea to make finding admins easier then I'll consider retracting this but I think the wiki discord server is very active, attracting new people weekly, and is being used to find help quickly. Listing admins there would assist users easily. cheers!   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   07:53, 22 July 2019 (MDT)

We could give admins a different color, give them a separate section displayed on the right or both. I'm fine with either approach. —ConcealedLight (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2019 (MDT)

Whichever way, it's fine for me. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2019 (MDT)

Sections + color scheme sounds good. That's how I've seen other servers do it.--Yanied (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (MDT)

For this change to be made GD will have to go into D&D Wiki>Server Settings>Roles>Admin and turn the "Display role members separately from online members" to green. —ConcealedLight (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2019 (MDT)

Some users have expressed some difficulty with seeing the new color, I myself find it hard on the eyes. Could it be shifted to a brighter shade of red? Thank you. —ConcealedLight (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2019 (MDT)

Thanks for getting around to this GD and I agree, and would add any dark color is probably difficult to see.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   06:48, 24 July 2019 (MDT)

— Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:45, 23 July 2019 (MDT)

hey we should have a memes channel

Personally I don't care too much for it. But if people show the support, then by all means.--Yanied (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2019 (MDT)

Why do we need a meme channel and what purpose would it serve? —ConcealedLight (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2019 (MDT)

Support. It would let people post or spam memes without flooding or bothering #casual, as not everyone enjoys memes.

Why was the channel locked? Why would anyone legitimately have a problem with something as innocent as a meme channel in a Discord server? - Guy 03:52, 24 July 2019 (MDT)

It was locked since changes on discord need to be discussed on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2019 (MDT)

Support. While hesitant I think that during its short presence users exercised decent use of the channel. Guy's comment about a separate area to not bother people is a good point that I agree with too.

Meme channels can have the chance to be filled with offensive material. That would be my guess why people wouldn't want it. It was mentioned that the memes need to be tasteful, and still uphold D&D Wiki's ethics, morals, values, etc.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   06:46, 24 July 2019 (MDT)

As long as the memes follow the policies, I don't have anything wrong with this channel. I think we need to see some support from the non-admin base for it though, just to make sure that we're not shoehorning everyone into a structure which no one but admins want seperated. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2019 (MDT)

Support. Look, having a meme channel is a win-win. If you like memes, you can post all the memes you want, and they wouldn't suffer any risk of being taken down as they might be in the #casual channel for "inane silliness". If you don't like memes, you won't have to see any more memes on the #casual channel or anywhere else. If you have no opinions on memes, then you should support this or at least not vote so that everyone else is happy. If you vote against the meme channel, then you're making everyone unhappy because of the aforementioned reasons. I rest my case. --Calibri (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2019 (MDT)

Support. Literally just for the same reasons as everyone else here who supports. Doesn't bother those in the casual channel, allows random spamming of crazy arbitrary memes (the casual channel literally says "Casual" does not mean random drivel, nonsense, or inane silliness.), and people can still make the choice whether they want to be bothered to look at the memes, or just stay in the casual channel, with just casual talk. Eh, just repeating stuff now. But yeah. --Cosmos (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2019 (MDT)

Support. As GD says as long as they follow policy I see it as beneficial. I propose we give this discussion until the end of the week so others have the chance to give their opinions before the channel is unlocked or deleted. —ConcealedLight (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2019 (MDT)

Support. See above. Anyone who does not like the meme channel can mute and hide it. —Papa slow-ying (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2019 (MDT)

It’s pretty clear what the consensus is, so I’m re-opening the meme channel based on the discussion above. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:56, 27 July 2019 (MDT)

Art Channel

Hey, just out of curiosity, should we add an Art Channel? This would make it so those that post their art can actually have their art be appreciated by more users. As opposed to it getting bogged down in Casual chat. Glass (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2020 (MST)

Support. As an artist helper, I'd find it therapeutic to be able to just post whatever DnD art I crank out where it's appropriate.--Yanied (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (MST)

• Support. space to share art separate from chat. Red Leg Leo (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2020 (MST)

• Support. As someone who uses "theater of the mind" in my games, it can be quite useful to see someone make something cool, and be able to use it as a reference when describing a heroic NPC struggling to fight against a ferocious monster and needs the party's help in doing so. But at the same time we need to ensure that the art posted follows the D&D Wiki guidelines; don't want another "Flavio dessert" incident. Glass (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2020 (MST)

Discord wiki being an extension adapts wiki proper guidelines and anything untasteful will be met with warning policy. Red Leg Leo (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2020 (MST)

Yes, I am in favor of this. It's not like it costs anything, Glass is right that the memes and casual channel can get cluttered, and it definitely doesn't distract from the whole 'D&D thing' we've got going on even if people post unrelated art, case in point the Star Wars/movie spoilers channel. PickleJarPete (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2020 (MST)

Speaking of which, we should probably look into renaming that. All in favor of "movie spoilers channel"? Glass (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (MST)

• Support. Seems fairly harmless. The world needs bullies. Remember to thank a bully today! (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2020 (MST)

• Support. Yes, this would be useful. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (MST)

Based on the above consensus, I've gone ahead and created #art with the same permissions as the #memes channel. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:29, 12 February 2020 (MST)

Movie Spoiler Channel Name

It has been discussed, mentioned, petitioned, etc and I'd like to get something that won't drift away in floating text down. I 100% understand making the channel a movie spoiler channel, but am against it because movie talks overlap and not everyone sees every movie when they come out. Instead, I'd rather allow mods/admins to create movie specific channels as needed, and delete them using their best judgement (i.e., no discussion for a certain movie after a couple of weeks, to clarify not a couple weeks after movie is out but just a 2-3 weeks of no one discussing the movie.)
This is similar to how its already been except with additional channels possibly. Red Leg Leo (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2020 (MST)

Okay, I can respect that, Leo. I was just wondering if we can at least get rid of the dead space that the Star Wars spoiler channel was taking up. Glass (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2020 (MST)

I think so. And if we need a spoilers channel it can be created. I am not sure of a downside to creating and deleting spoiler channels. Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2020 (MST)

It's only a downside if we forget to delete it or accidentally do so, I think. Unless someone honestly wants to archive whatever is on the channel. I'm for getting rid of that dead space.--Yanied (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2020 (MST)

Addendum to General Rule 3

The current text for General Rule 3 of the Discord server is as follows:

3) No "not safe for work" (NSFW) content. This includes usernames, avatars, and "now playing" messages. Cropped images of NSFW content are still considered NSFW. Basically, if you wouldn't share it with your grandmother or your boss, don't share it here. "Not safe for life" (NSFL) content also falls under this rule.
3a) Swearing falls under this rule; abbreviating swears or "bleeping out" with asterisks etc still counts.
3b) You ARE allowed to circumvent the filter for the purposes of avoiding the "Scunthorpe problem."

Although this rule seems fairly cut and dry, there are certain kinds of socially unacceptable behavior that are only implicitly forbidden by this rule, rather than explicitly forbidden, and this has caused a lot of discomfort and hurt feelings. In order to (1) prevent this from being a recurring issue, (2) clarify what has often been treated inconsistently as an "edge case" and (3) allow administrators and chat moderators more cause for action in tackling disgraceful behavior, I would like to propose that the following addendum be added to GR3:

• 3c) Please keep your sexual desires, thoughts, wishes, exploits, preferences, etc. to yourself. The D&D Wiki community is not the place to talk about such things, and these topics can easily offend a lot of people.
• 3d) If someone shares something inappropriate, please don't encourage him or her.

Natsumi super fan (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2020 (MST)

i agree. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 21:18, 22 February 2020 (MST)

• Support. As sad as I am to even have this discussion, I believe this does need to be clear in order to clean up the chat. The rules currently could be argued, and even though some users and admins would support warnings,better language would help alleviate some issues. Red Leg Leo (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2020 (MST)

• Neutral. I'm all for addendum 3d, I feel as though 3c should be reworded. Mainly, I can imagine someone going through a tough time in a relationship or something, and they'd be looking for actual guidance. If we left it the way it's currently worded now, they'd get the boot instead. Maybe edit it so "relations" are acceptable, but not "conduct of a sexual nature". Then I'll change my vote to a solid Support. Glass (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2020 (MST)

You know what, that's a perfectly fair point. How does this revision sound? "Please keep your sexual desires, thoughts, wishes, exploits, preferences, etc. to yourself. The D&D Wiki community is not the place to talk about such things, and these topics can easily offend a lot of people. However, talking about relations of a personal or strictly romantic nature is OK, as long as you keep it PG." Natsumi super fan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2020 (MST)

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Thanks for that. Glass (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2020 (MST)

I believe that 3c should be further amended, the reference to someone's "sexual preference" could be interpreted to mean that we are also disallowing people to express their general sexual orientation, is that something we really want to ban? I would suggest some sort of revision to "explicit sexual preferences" and some sort of addendum that states something along the lines of "expression of general personal sexual orientation is acceptable".Industrialz

The way it is worded is to mean sexual relations. I.E. keep your sexual desires, your sexual thoughts, your sexual wishes, your sexual exploits. I feel like this is understood because there's no request to change the wording for thoughts, wishes, exploits, etc. Including relations in there, we don't need to hear about your sexual relations with another human being. Further, is there really a need to ask or share if you are into boys or girls in a public forum for hobbies? I don't want to ban it but the current climate in the chat makes the thing reek of a tinder app sometimes. If you are interested in someone, direct message them! (PLEASE!!) I understand asking for a relationship advice. That isn't an issue here. Red Leg Leo (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2020 (MST)

I did not have sexual relations with that woman! — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:23, 23 February 2020 (MST)

• Neutral. I'm doing a summarization here, as a sort of intermediate result:

3) No "not safe for work" (NSFW) content. This includes usernames, avatars, and "now playing" messages. Cropped images of NSFW content are still considered NSFW. Basically, if you wouldn't share it with your grandmother or your boss, don't share it here. "Not safe for life" (NSFL) content also falls under this rule.

3a) Swearing falls under this rule; abbreviating swears or "bleeping out" with asterisks etc still counts.

3b) You ARE allowed to circumvent the filter for the purposes of avoiding the "Scunthorpe problem."

3c) Please keep your sexual desires, thoughts, wishes, exploits, preferences, etc. to yourself. The D&D Wiki community is not the place to talk about such things, and these topics can easily offend a lot of people. However, talking about relations of a personal or strictly romantic nature is OK, as long as you keep it PG.

3d) If someone shares something inappropriate, please don't encourage him or her.

My version:

3) Inappropriate contant/behaviour has no place on D&D-Wiki, and will have consequences.

3-A) Swearing in ANY FORM. But; circumventing the filter for the purposes of avoiding the "Scunthorpe Problem" is allowed.

3-AA) Examples are: "Shit","Fuck","f***","WTF", "DAFUQ", "What the F?", etc.

3-B) ANYTHING that is "Sexual Reproduction Related", "(Soft-)Pornographic" or "Sexual Roleplaying".

3-BB) Examples are: sexual preferences, sexual desires, sexual thoughts, sexual wishes, sexual exploits, sexual pictures, sexual memes.

3-BBB) Gender-Related exchange is allowed. (That's what Industrialz meant, right?)

3-C) In this manner misbehaving users ARE NOT TO ENCOURAGE.

3-CC) Misbehaviour is recomended to be pointed out to the user in question first, to give them a chance of correcting them selfs. By continued ignoring of the rules is it recomended to consult one of the moderators/admins.

Websurfer1111 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2020 (MST)

I don't like this version at all. Red Leg Leo (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2020 (MST)

I am not particularly fond of the wording on this one either. A bit TOO strict. Especially now that Flavio (A.K.A. "the very reason this rule is in discussion in the first place) seems to be making some level of . . . Improvement. From what I've seen, he's starting to realize some of his errors and is correcting some of his more lewd behavior to be more mature. Just throwing that out there. Glass (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2020 (MST)

No problem. It's nothing more then a suggestion I threw into the discussion pot.

My main thought in my version is it to keep the rules short & clear, and introduce a structure which can be expanded with sub-rules, explainations, or exceptions.

Feel free to change what needs to be changed. 🙂

Websurfer1111 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2020 (MST)

• Neutral. I'm confused. What behavior prompted this change? Personally the insinuation that "PHB ranger doesn't deserve a buff" or "variant human is a balanced race" is more offensive to me than anything any version of rule 3 would prohibit. As long as rules are enforced, though, "don't encourage breaking rules" (e.g., 3d) seems pretty obvious to have. If anything that should probably be its own rule. - Guy 21:54, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

You might gather some context from my personal remarks below regarding your proposal but just in case one user was very vocal about their interests. It made other users uncomfortable, some of those same users would also egg it on at times. Then another user decided to share some details as well. Since the proposal of this, and a chat mod actually modding the chat, the conversation has subsided. It doesn't pay much, but it is honest work. Red Leg Leo (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

General Rule 3b Reduction

3a) Swearing falls under this rule; abbreviating swears or "bleeping out" with asterisks etc still counts.

Tl;dr - At a minimum, remove the phrase regarding 'abbreviating swears.'

Omitting even abbreviations seems ridiculously excessive. It's 2020. It's difficult to imagine anyone who would find this Discord being offended by "wtf", but under this rule that oft-used acronym would be grounds for administrative action.

D&D Wiki uses the phrase, "Swear words that are 'bleeped out' with asterisks or other symbols also fall under this policy." There is no mention of abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms, or anything of the sort, and I do not see why that needs to be codified in the Discord server. It seems worth mentioning the Wikipedia policy on which this was based over a decade ago—now Wikipedia:Civility, I believe—doesn't make specific mention of swear words at all.

A Wiki is not a chatroom, and a chatroom is not a wiki. One is much more formal than the other, so it is illogical for the inherently less formal one to have stricter rules on something like this. I request either the Discord is updated to reflect the standards of the wiki, or that both are updated to more closely resemble the 2020 standards of Wikipedia on which such policies were based. - Guy 21:54, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

For some context, the filter was implemented in part based on this discussion and the consensus that the discord is considered an extension of the wiki. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:26, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

Well, yes. If the Discord server is an extension of the wiki, then it should have the same rules—not this additional, stricter rule about abbreviations.

If I believe the Discord should be even less strict, I suppose that's a topic for another time. - Guy 22:38, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

THAT is based on how strict I've seen Green Dragon be about this in the past. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:42, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

Disgusting, honestly. I don't know the context but I'm revolted that the policy as written could be enforced in such a way. - Guy 22:48, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

Food can be disgusting, murder and rape is disgusting, not being allowed to say shoot, fudge, darn, (insert word), mother trucker is also disgusting? My soap box is below, but I am baffled that a policy wanting to remove swearing is disgusting. There are servers or chat rooms that don't allow swearing. Please don't pretend its illogical since it is less formal. AND I am in the ones with swearing too, so I am not pretending that servers can't have it. Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

No. I barely care that swearing isn't allowed and you realize I'm not even arguing against it at present. I'm only suggesting the abbreviation portion to be removed.

What I find revolting is administrative action for that Wiki policy as it is written, if that administrative occurred at all how I imagined it. Surely I must be imagining it incorrectly and I shouldn't assume such things. - Guy 13:32, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

I do realize you aren’t opposing swearing as a whole. I provided a lot of context that didn’t involved abbreviations to support the warning for abbreviation. There is also discussion about swearing being included, and I’ve gotten my replies a bit intertwined.

I think you’d be surprised to see admin action for what your talking about. I would be too. I’m not sure what you imagine, and if you’re not yet opposed to sharing your opinion, I’d like to understand what it is you imagined. Red Leg Leo (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

Aight I am going to be frank with you guys I think this rule is kind've pointless and having a bot censor our cursing isn't going to really change how people behave. Just yesterday I said the word "cocked" as in reloading a NERF gun and it got censored. It wasn't offensive, and a bot censoring it only makes ok words bad for no reason (akin to the "Scunthrope problem" that is meantioned in the rules). Also, the bot has no way of detecting curse words in image, which is how Geo was perfectly fine posting an image with the N-word in it (I'm fine that he used it, just an example), but because of this rule I always have to wonder if I can post memes with other curse words like the F or S word. Tl;dr the current policy feels inconsistent at best and I think it best to remove it.(PickleJarPete (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2020 (MDT)) (CST)

I work with firearms, there are other words aka "charge" that would carry the exact (correct) meaning of "cocking" a weapon. That said, we don't need someone coming in and spamming the word. And for someone to use their mind and possibly describe an action a different way, hardly seems a bad thing. There is a filter issue with certain words, I don't find this to be one.

As for posting images with curse words, why do you have to wonder? No swearing or cursing. Because it is a picture wouldn't change that. If a chat mod posted something offensive, report it. But it doesn't give permission to not follow the rules. Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

I feel that the wiki should be less strict in general as to the swearing policy, especially on the Discord. It should be expected that there may be more swearing on the Discord as it has a more conversational tone and people will be freer with their language. I don't think there should be a rule at all against abbreviating swears. Abbreviations are commonly used to the point where the curse word loses its meaning, for instance: SNAFU. --PJammaz (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2020 (MDT)

SNAFU is a very specific abbreviation typically not associated with everyone but with a select group of people. The intent is for the curse word to lose meaning to be able to speak it in a public setting. Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

• Oppose. I think the rule is fine and I think that admins/mods using discretion has been okay. Most of the time, abbreviations are ignored. Recently, I chose not to ignore one because the conversation started with (and paraphrasing) what can we get away with. Papa slow-ying used the abbreviation "stfu". Given the context, the user's "kek" or similar behavior that follows when an admin/mod does give warnings for not following chat rules, I thought it wise to give a warning.

The recent mute for MetalShadowOverlord was because of repeated warnings for gaming the system of rule 3a by posting pictures with hand written swear words, and when I saw yesterday the gaming of the system for rule 3a saying "hory sheet" if I recall correctly.

People are warned or muted for egregiously and or intentionally trying to circumvent the rule. If you search the chat, you find many, many, many, MANY examples of abbreviations not addressed, not warned, not even a blip of attention given to. If people want to be purposefully vulgar and attempt to be a rebel or "fight the man", then I find appropriate discretion to use the warning system the right thing to do.

Also, just a personal note on the topic; is it really so hard to clean up y'all's language? I swear daily. I use the f word as a every part of speech in one sentence at times, and yet manage to speak like an intelligent, civil, mature human being when associating myself with D&D Wiki. Mods typically don't participate in the abbreviations but when they do, they agreed to be part of "The Face" of this site. Society hasn't fully adapted to swear words being completely normative, and not even close in a professional setting. So where is the disconnect? As I stated on Discord - Twitch, YouTube, Facebook pages, have mods that help enforce the site's or chat's rules. The mods do it because they believe in something that is being provide and want to support it. If you don't feel that way, why are you mod/admin? Do you just want a fancy color? Special permissions others don't get? Are you sure you want to help make D&D Wiki and its outlets a better place? Does cussing and swearing really help bring people in? I think keeping it out does help the image of the site. By the way, when I rejoined the server, I was catching up with a culture that was allowing legal adults to ask minors about their sexual preferences or experiences, which really pushed the need to get rid of sexual talk. There were other discussions going on that weren't exactly appropriate either. For me, allowing the swearing and egregious use of their abbreviations lets people think that more things can be discussed. By keeping discretion in the hands of chat mods, it helps curb the possibility. Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

• I'm just going to say partial support just because it's a vote. I am probably the admin who enforces the language rules the least due to my discretionary process, so I don't know if I have a say. But anyway, the abbreviations bit is, as given in examples, inconsistently enforced despite being explicit in the rules. In the instance it was enforced, it was actually due to another rule about gaming the system. So it really is not a necessary part of the rule unless you want to keep it for the purpose of gaming, or as a catch all failsafe, which I guess is ...fine? --Yanied (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2020 (MDT)

• Support. Updating the policies to match Wikipedia's is a great solution. The idea to censor chat messages is based off internet platforms that automatically bleep out vulgar language. It appears to me that listing the policy just doesn't reach the same conclusions that automatically bleeping does. So, since it doesn't work then we need to make some changes to make it work, and I think that the precedent that Wikipedia offers is the best precedent for our situation. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2020 (MDT)

Based on what I perceive as the consensus, I've gone ahead and amended rule 3a to no longer prohibit abbreviations such as "wtf." — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 16:36, 28 May 2020 (MDT)

Looking For Group channel

Maybe once a week a user visits the server looking for a group (LFG) to play with. I think this channel would be good for others and the community. Red Leg Leo (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2020 (MDT)

Support. I think this would be an overall benefit to the discord server. PJammaz (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (MDT)

Support. It's a good way to log open game servers and people who want them. --Yanied (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2020 (MDT)

Support I'm in. I have a server i'd like to advertise. Someone404 (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2020 (MDT)

Support I agree with Leo on this one, and with everything that's going on it has been happening now frequently. If we get a spot set aside, then it'll increase our notoriety somewhat. Glass (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2020 (MDT)

Support I'm totally in agreement with this. I don't see any way it could hurt, and it's always a nice resource. Rorix the White (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2020 (MDT)

Support. Toss my support in there for this as well. Red Leg Leo (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (MDT)

Support. A dedicated place for game ads of all kinds would be great. Papa slow-ying (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2020 (MDT)

Support. Seems fair to me. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2020 (MDT)

Discussion

A couple comments have raised my eyebrows. I have a server i'd like to advertise. & A dedicated place for game ads. I don't think it would be healthy for users to spam their servers for others to play in, but not excluding them from sharing their servers (just spam prevention). This might be something worth addressing before the channel is added, presuming enough support. The other comment makes me wonder if users want LFG for all games they play, and if the one channel is enough. I thought it'd be just for D&D, but am not opposed to it being LFG for games in general. I'll table the idea for #dnd-lfg & #other-lfg as an option too. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2020 (MDT)

I like the idea of two separate channels, one for general tabletop games and one for other games. As for preventing spam, I think a limit of one ad per day might be a good rule to limit that. --PJammaz (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2020 (MDT)

Yes, spamming is not okay. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2020 (MDT)

I guess it makes sense, since we have a wide variety of non-dnd ttrpg interests as well.--Yanied (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2020 (MDT)

The channels were created just a moment ago. Good luck to everyone! Red Leg Leo (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2020 (MDT)