Talk:D&D Wiki on Social Media

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Scheduled[edit]

I have scheduled a post for Sept 26 at 7:30am to draw attention to the review process for the Houserule Magazine project articles. I am planning on pre-scheduling posts from now on, to cover for those days when nobody has any free time to post something on the page. Once I start doing that, I'll make a scheduling list so we can coordinate scheduled posts. That way the page won't randomly shout over itself if other things get scheduled. --Kydo (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2016 (MDT)

Out of ideas[edit]

I'm running out of fluff. I can't think of much else to try and draw attention to the wiki. I don't have time to browse around looking for great pages to feature on FB. Any ideas on how to try and get/keep people hyped? --Kydo (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2016 (MDT)

D&D Wiki Plays FRUA[edit]

So I'm going to like, make videos of me playing through the Realm campaign for Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures and I named the PCs after some of us (Grene Dragon, Sergeant Lion, Kydo, Marasmusine, Sir Sprinkles, Lord Lexington (aka me)). I'm wondering if we want to put the videos on the Facebook? AD&D/FRUA is kind of old, but it's something and it's played by a D&D Wiki user/admin and is D&D-related, so it fits, right? And the way the campaign is set up, I might have to make a couple more parties to play some of it, so I could even include the names of other users in the future, which they may or may not find neat.

So anyways, if you want to put them on the Facebook, let me know and I'll work it out :)--GamerAim (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Downloaded FRUA after you told me about it. This is awesome. Yes. Awesome. --Kydo (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that's a yes, I guess I'll just upload everything here because I don't have access to the Facebook thingy. If I need to upload the stuff elsewhere, let me know. There's even a nice screenshot in there :P--GamerAim (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and that video was of the REF5 Book of Lairs adventure "Skeletons" while the screenshot, IIRC, was from U1 The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. The Realm games 35 and 27 respectively. (I'm currently recording U1, but I'll upload it when ready.)--GamerAim (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you be willing to do voiceover for the videos? Also, I was planning on making a companion YouTube page to go with the FB page. That way, if the community makes any videos, we can share them through FB and generate attention through two different social media communities. That way your videos could all be put together into a YouTube playlist. --Kydo (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, I was thinking about making a how to edit the wiki tutorial video to add to the editing page. --Kydo (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that the lack of commentary probably makes it boring, so if you think no one would be interested in it, that's fine. I'm just doing it for fun anyway, maybe it could serve as a poorly-edited walkthrough, but I'm not comfortable doing a voiceover. Oh well, it was a nice idea :)--GamerAim (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Boring? Hardly! I just know that some people like commentary. (Personally, I mute let's plays with commentary) I was just curious. I definitely want to see this thing through. What do you think of uploading then to a D&D Wiki YouTube channel? --Kydo (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I can upload them there :)--GamerAim (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an awesome idea I'm favor of, I already can't wait to watch and see if FRUA is as cool as promised. I'd be interested in also possibly contributing DnD/relatedgams Let's Plays, in the future. --SgtLion (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I made the channel. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0mJTlipkcTg8WzXwb-wnyQ. We can do this one of two ways: Run it separately from the FB page and grant access to video producers on a per-need basis, or just give access to anyone involved in the FB project. Thoughts? Oh, also, I tried to upload a banner, but the minimum size requirements don't match the cropped portion for display, so I have no idea how to do it correctly. --Kydo (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, also, in order to make the YouTube account, I had to make a new gmail for it. (I didn't want it directly connected to my personal account for hopefully obvious reasons.) They wouldn't let me just use my own email for security reasons I guess. I also had to give the wiki a gender and birthday, which was weird, because Google was worried that someone might try to catfish our wiki. XD Anyways, the point is, D&D Wiki now has an arbitrary gmail account. I was thinking maybe we could use that as the social media project group email? Then we wouldn't have to use our personal emails to invite users into the project. --Kydo (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to the FB, so I'd still need access to the YouTube. Not really sure how this works. I could try to get a banner, if need be.--GamerAim (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Would it be easier for you to upload the videos (a drag-and-drop interface, easier than pie) and then share it on FB yourself? Or would you prefer to just do your videos and have us FB guys share it for you? --Kydo (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If you give me access to whatever I need, I can do it myself :) --GamerAim (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Blargh, this is more trouble than I anticipated. Recording the videos is easy! But there's trouble with verification and junk. And apparently we can't upload more than 15 minutes to YouTube unless someone pops in their phone number to the account to verify it \o/ I'm just uploading them to Google Drive from now on, and if people find them, then whatever. Do what you will, I guess.
P.S. I hope you found that pair of nail clippers you were looking for (I assume that was you; I deleted the activity history and I think I stopped it from being recorded now).--GamerAim (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I guess that means you won't mind me uploading them? Sorry I wasn't around to help during this. I didn't realize I'd forgotten to verify the account. Sorry about all of the complications! --Kydo (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me, but the account isn't verified, which means that the videos can't be uploaded. If you can solve this, that'd be nice.--GamerAim (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This is weird. My computer is uploading the video right now, no problem... Ah, I see how to access the issue. It's verified and first video has been uploaded. --Kydo (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded the second episode as well, and set them both into a playlist. I was going to make a little introduction video, but my camera has decided that today is a good day to die. --Kydo (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I went ahead and edited the video descriptions and titles, adding some background information on the series and modules being adapted, and added some tags.--GamerAim (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


Minor Historical Note[edit]

The page reads "but nobody seems to remember exactly who started it, or whether the initiative started here or on Facebook". It was I who started the page, way back when. Not a big deal but figured if it mattered I'd say such.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:53, 10 December 2017 (MST)

Thanks for the information. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2017 (MST)
This is a truth that I, too, remember. --SgtLion (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (MST)

Facebook Page[edit]

I messaged the Facebook D&D Wiki Page requesting permissions to be an admin there. Not because I have more to offer the page than others but I’ve got an active interest in D&D Wiki and just in case others reach out to it, an active member is available. Any help, even a refusal, would be helpful. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2018 (MDT)

Hey, sorry, I've been out of it for a bit. Glad to see a new admin on the team! So, being involved in the Facebook page is actually kind of a lot of work. You wind up being the voice and face for a large group of people. The wiki has a reputation problem. The hobby culture's attitude toward homebrew and the wiki is changing, we aren't enemy number 1 any more, but there's still a significant number of people who go out of their way to badmouth our community, especially on facebook. In addition, whenever the wiki goes down, people contact the Facebook page for help, so you'll be fielding tech support questions to a certain extent. The wiki does go down semi-regularly, as I'm sure you've noticed already. I used to do weekly posts to try and drum up positive attention, but my life became a little distracting so I've been foundering on that for over a year. I'd be happy to hand over responsibility to someone who is willing to try their best to promote our community. But I don't really have power over that. (Or at least it doesn't seem as though I do) I believe Hooper is the one who has actual control over it. I think SgtLion also has access? --Kydo (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2018 (MDT)
I was asked to chime in. Though I created the page forever ago, I have not been an admin on it in years so my opinion would not be helpful. I'm too far removed from it's current operations.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:27, 2 September 2018 (MDT)
thank you both for your time. I’ve reached out to Jwguy for help since they’re listed on main page Facebook and SgtLion also said they’re the only admin for the Facebook page. I understand there may be a lot that comes with the Facebook page but I am certainly willing to promote the community . BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2018 (MDT)
Sorry for the late response. I saw this while I was at work some time ago and intended to revisit it when I was at home, but forgot. At the moment, I've kind of ended up in charge of the facebook page, although I usually leave it to the editors who are enabled on the page, as far as running it. Since it seems like it has come down to this, I'll go ahead and add you. It can't hurt to have more people aboard. Ideally, I think everyone should be on the page just for communications' sake. --Jwguy (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2018 (MDT)
Wow! Awesome news to hear. Thanks for your help Jwguy. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (MDT)
I don’t mean to pry or be a thorn-just want to mention I didn’t see an invite for the moderation team. I’m not sure if I’ve missed it or something happened and it didn’t get sent? I ‘unno, just letting you know. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
Hm. It says there's a pending invitation for you. I also responded to the direct message you had sent. You didn't see it? -Jwguy (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
Oh. discouraging. I did see the DM, but chose not to respond because I got the vibe to carry discussion here. I'll try to contact FB support why I haven't got that invite. Thanks! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
I sent it again. If it doesn't show up, let me know your email in the DMs and I'll send it there. -Jwguy (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
Many thanks Jwguy for entrusting me. I look forward to trying to draw people into our community and contribute. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Discord Removal[edit]

I'd like to personally state that I believe the discord, as it currently exists, should be removed from this and all Dandwiki pages, and we ought to distance our site from it in every instance possible.

It has proven itself to be a cauldron of problems which bubble over, and end up splashing onto this site. We cannot, in good conscience, pretend that the behavior of our users in that discord does not reflect on our wiki when we all but consider it to be an extension of this website.

If the arguments over at GamerAim's RfA are correct, and the happenings on that discord are not relevant to this site, then, the reasonable course of action is to disassociate with it altogether rather than continue to reference it as our discord on both the Community Portal and our 'unofficial' discord on this page. It isn't relevant, and it is frankly not benefiting this site, as it is. --Jwguy (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I'm gonna have to disagree. Being able to get help on writing/editing pages immediately through the Discord has been of immense help to me and has greatly improved my writing skills. It's too useful of a resource to just remove entirely. I think that there should be more heavily enforced rules on how people should speak in the Discord since drama has been occurring. At the very worst, we could just remove the casual and non-wiki-related channels, but that wouldn't be fun. EpicBoss99 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
I don't think removing the casual channels is a good idea. IMO, that's the point of it. If people want to discuss D&D Wiki-specific things, D&D Wiki already exists :P It is nice to have them on Discord, I suppose (being I added them and all), but that was never intended to be the sole purpose of it. As you said, the point is to have fun :) I should note that the majority of drama took place prior to the restructuring of Discord which more heavily enforced rules in an effort to stamp out drama. The drama spilling out into my RfA is, sadly, mostly from before that time :/ But, regardless, that matter is largely resolved.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
You are free to continue to corroborate with editors wherever you wish, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. The benefits you have gained, while wonderful, do not represent a benefit the discord brings to the site as a whole, however, nor is it appropriate that we continue to maintain this hands-on, hands-off relationship in regards to how we treat the discord. We cannot continue to pretend that the discord somehow is not relevant to our site while we broadcast it's invite code and refer its banned users to appeal on the wiki, and confuse people who enter it by pretending that it is beholden to all the same standards and rules as this site, when instead it is largely controlled by one person and those standards are not necessarily enforced.
Again, as it is, I do not think it does us any good service to continue to associate with it. --Jwguy (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
The Discord server was created solely to benefit the D&D Wiki community, but at this point the users in it have only fostered a toxic community that has spilled out onto D&D Wiki. There has indeed been disruptive behavior in and as a result of the Discord server, so maybe removing the link from here would put a stop to that? The server definitely got put into a bad spot where whenever it was treated as official, people complained, and when it was treated as unofficial, people complained. All it was ever intended to be was a place where D&D Wiki users - and others - can chat. As you said, D&D Wiki can't be responsible for off-site discord, but that discord has sadly spread :(
Anyhow, what do you consider to the the state of our Facebook, reddit and YouTube pages? Are they "official" communication channels for D&D Wiki and administrated as an extension of it? I never considered them or Discord as an extension of D&D Wiki, but I assume you do? How do other people feel about it?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
I'm not going to hide my intentions, and I'm going to speak freely. I hope you understand that I don't mean this to harm you, but it is my honest opinion: I am more concerned with how it is administered in light of the problems that have spilled out of it and the fact that it bears the websites name and rules despite being governed largely at your whim, although that spilling out is also a problem.
As for your question, I can only speak for the facebook page, but as soon as it was picked up on Dandwiki and maintained as a joint venture, I started considering it official. When people come to that page asking for help or with questions, I consider every answer to be a formal one and personally I'd consider everyone who contributes to it to be acting in their capacity as an administrator here. Otherwise, what are we doing? Why are we representing a website on facebook when that facebook page technically doesn't represent the website? --Jwguy (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
I understand, and those concerns are valid. However, as I keep mentioning, the vast majority of the issues taken against me and my running of the Discord server led directly to me restructuring it to better integrate with D&D Wiki's policies and put formal constraints on the authority of all administrators, including me. Since then, I — like you with Facebook — have conducted myself as though it were an official communications channel, despite the pretense that it was not. The reason I've been so defensive is because it is no longer administered in the manner I am being accused of, nor has it been for awhile.
To answer your rhetorical question of, "what are we doing?" I only shared the Discord as a way for users to keep in touch when the Wiki wasn't working. It was first shared during a time of frequent technical issues. I never wanted it to be used for official business, just as a way for people to chat more informally than on D&D Wiki. It was not my original intention to represent D&D Wiki. This is why it initially used looser interpretation of D&D Wiki policy and was far less strict about user conduct - not just mine, but other users and administrators as well. I hope this helps explain some things?
P.S. I appreciate you not hiding your intentions. I am pleased that we can both be open :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
I think this is a reasonable proposal. Even though I was the one who originally added it to this page, I now think that as long as the Discord server remains unofficial, it might not be appropriate to list it on our social media page, as even though it's clearly marked as not official, people still get confused about it. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:31, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
”would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?” We can’t stop people from gathering on a Discord server to discuss their passion and works on a website. You can distance yourself if you want, but if people still want a server to readily discuss wiki content with more features than the tavern offers, then they’re gonna do it. As much strife has been caused, I think better moderation would go a long way. Less absolutism would benefit the app. The wiki didn’t become what it is without speed bumps, the Discord server simply has a hurdle. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
Could there be a way to discuss policies for unofficial D&D Wiki channels, and as a community dealing with concensus implement our policies on the discord server? I think that if we can deal with the problems on discord, but keep its good side, no one would object. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2018 (MDT)
I think a simple change in ownership would go a long way toward improving the perception of the server's administration. Regardless of the way (GamerAim claims) it is currently run, the fact is that the server is seen as being governed mostly by him alone, as Jwguy talked about above. The first thought would be to give ownership to Green Dragon since he is the owner of the wiki, but I don't like that just because of his unfamiliarity with the platform, and I also dislike giving ownership to Marasmusine, the next most senior wiki admin on the server, for the same reason. The person I'd most like to see as owner is SgtLion, but he left the server and expressed a desire not to return. I believe Cotsu Malcior would be the best person to take the position of owner as they have consistently shown their neutrality in disputes that have arisen on and as a result of the server, and seems more concerned with keeping the server running smoothly, and minimizing the drama that occurs there, and the userbase's perception of them seems to align with that. This seems to be GamerAim's intention as well, but that's not how it's perceived by the userbase as far as I can tell, and from my point of view his actions seem to have caused more drama than it's prevented. The two best examples of this that I can think of are the banning of ConcealedWife, and of myself and Varkarrus, both times for what amounts to an interpersonal conflict.
I highly doubt this would completely eliminate the problems in and that come out of the Discord server, but I do believe that it would lessen the frequency and severity of the problems that do arise. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:50, 12 October 2018 (MDT)
I agree with Geo in this regard. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
I've personally no interest in us even condoning acknowledgement of the server's existence - The announcement channel is inevitably (and has been) an unfair lobbying platform for the biased Discord community, the admin channel is inevitably (and has been) an unfair source of conspiration on admin matters, and the last 9 months have shown we can't keep our personal Discord drama from spilling onto the wiki in a hundred different forms and making everything not-fun. The Discord server breeds far, far more charged vitriolic conflict than any collaboration. The issue is not the server ownership, nor is it the policy; It is the current community that lives there. As such, I'd argue it's almost certain that these issues will never be meaningfully addressed. --SgtLion (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2018 (MDT)
How would you best attempt to address these issues? — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:28, 12 October 2018 (MDT)
SgtLion beat me to the punch. In short, ownership is irrelevant. SgtLion and I have both drawn issue with the toxicity that the Discord server has bred in the community. You offer a solution, yes, but to a problem that does not exist. The problem with the server is not and has never been with me or how I "ran" the server. As BSFM says, the Discord server is inevitable. All we can do is roll with the punches and hope that the community figures itself out.
Furthermore, the "frequency and severity of the problems that do arise" is blown out of proportion. For the most part, the server experiences less drama now than it did before the restructuring that I have mentioned numerous times. I view this, combined with ConcealedWife's return to the server, as evidence that the community is healing, the events of my RfA notwithstanding.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2018 (MDT)
To answer the question - With the current Discord community, I don't think said issues can be addressed, because the issues lies with the community there. Hence my opposition to allowing the thing to be acknowledged at all. --SgtLion (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2018 (MDT)
Re-engaging with this conversation, my opposition is both in regards to the lack of administrative oversight and server ownership issues mentioned above, and the fact that the issues that have gestated there over time, eventually until they exploded onto our wiki. The latter is symptomatic of the first, in my opinion. Take it as you will, but from what I can see, every single issue that has spilled over has stemmed from that issue. As SgtLion has brought up the concern that the discord has lended itself to bias and injustice, in terms of the administrative communications channels, that only gives more reason for either a complete restructuring in that regard, or complete and total disassociation. I say the latter is the proper way, especially given the contradiction that arises if we're going to continue along this path of pretending that impropriety in Discord is somehow not an issue for the wiki. --Jwguy (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2018 (MDT)
I am actively addressing negative elements in the server as they arise. As SgtLion has said, the community has become toxic. This was always the danger of Discord, which we warned against months ago. All that can really be done at this point is to try and steer users away from toxic behaviors and encourage discussion on D&D Wiki itself. That is a solution that I am devoted to and I believe, based on what I've seen so far, that it will work.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
I'm a little confused here. Are we discussing the REMOVAL of the Discord, as in shutting it down, or just not advertising it on the wiki? EpicBoss99 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
I think the latter, but the current consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the link on this page. The Discord situation is complicated, but as you said, it's a valuable resource to some users and GD seems to agree that we can keep it that way if we're careful about the actions we take to preserve that positivity :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2018 (MDT)
Considering the majority of input in this topic are to the contrary aside from EpicBoss99, BigShotFancyMan, albeit for different reasons, I'd hesitate to call that a consensus. At best, Green Dragon's seemed to indicate that perhaps there could be a way to salvage it, but almost none of the responses in that chain indicate belief that this necessarily can or should be done, at least not without major change. --Jwguy (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2018 (MDT)
I also support EpicBoss' and BSFM's sentiments, as you say for different reasons. GD, Geodude and CL seemed — to me — to think that removing the link isn't warranted. It was my understanding the link should stay because it's helpful and no one can stop people from using the server, so removing it might not be that beneficial. That said, I have no personal stake in keeping the link. I agree with SgtLion's sentiments that the community has become toxic from it. I'm not even the person who added the link, just so there's no confusion about that. In fact, I objected to it, but Green Dragon said it was okay. (I state this just so it's clear I'm not responsible for it being on this page and appearing official.) So, like I said, I personally don't care. I just don't think that removing it will control the damage at all.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2018 (MDT)
First, off topic, it's an unappealing and a wrong mannerism to say "this person said" and "that person said". It's you writing your text, so trying to tie together other users into your words never comes off well. Normally, you should take what other users say, their judgments, and make it personaly yours.
Now, if we want to see who is for this link and who is against it, maybe a vote would be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to see where we stand on the servers "unofficial", "official", etc. status.
I see Discord building a community, but I also see extreme emotions surfacing that have no correlation to D&D Wiki. I agree that these emotions seem to spill over to D&D Wiki.
I understand that removing a link probably will change very little (honestly, how many of the discord users were directed there by this link? I guess only a small percentage). This is why I want to reform the tough edges on the Discord server. Is it possible to grant ownership of the server to multiple people, say all the admins?
The complete removal of the discord server, while problem solving, would likely be unsuccessful. I presume that the users on discord would not bow to this concensus, or it would reappear in much the same way. If we do end up voting, then this should appear there too. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2018 (MDT)
The way Discord is set up (the entire service, not just our server), only one person can be designated "owner" of a server. An "admin" designation already exists on our server, with the power to do most anything on the server, save adding and removing the admin role from others, kicking/banning other admins, or deleting the server, all of which can be done only by the server owner. The owner of a server is the only one with absolute power there. Perhaps someone could make an account on there named "wiki admins" or something, that all the admins have the password to, and designate that account as server owner? Or GA could just make you owner. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 00:21, 18 October 2018 (MDT)
I'm not sure if you're directing your first point at me, but if so, I don't get it. It'd be redundant to rewrite what other people said just to say it myself. Whatever the case and whatever you meant by that, I guess a vote to decide if we keep the link on this page is appropriate. Is there a formal voting format we need to put up, or do you just go through and count votes from what people said in this thread? If the latter, put me down for removing the link; I didn't want it here in the first place and the arguments for removing it only reinforce that.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2018 (MDT)
Its a formal vote, for a set period of time. Go ahead and set it up then. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2018 (MDT)

Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server[edit]

This vote is to decide if we should remove links to Dicord servers from D&D Wiki on all D&D Wiki pages. Links would no longer be allowed. If you want it removed, vote Support. If you want it to stay, vote Oppose. If you want to be neutral, vote Neutral. If you want it discussed, vote Discussion. --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Can we remember this about a ‘’link’’, not the server. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

No discussion has taken place for several days, so I'm going to go ahead and close this vote. Per this vote, the server link will remain. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:14, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

That makes sense. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2018 (MDT)
Consider this sentence as some rehash of further complaint, and throw in a hint of decrying, too. --SgtLion (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2018 (MST)
To end this vote, we need to archive and create a new entry on Template:News. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2018 (MST)

(3/5/1)

Discussion

Green Dragon: when you edited my above comment to say all D&D Wiki pages, does this include user pages? I am assuming no, but I'm not sure where else Discord server links are posted. Does it apply to the Tavern and non-user talk pages? I am guessing yes.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Support

  • I've already said elsewhere this vote is pointless, but I did agree to vote. The whole Discord community will just come here and vote as much as they need to - At least I finally get how lobbying works. --SgtLion (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • I am absolutely against the idea that D&D wiki should promote or be polluted by foreign interests. Quincy (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • Purely from a conflict resolution standpoint, I support removing these links. Without allowing links to discord our hard stance will also tell users that if they are feeling threatened, harassed, discriminated against, etc on discord: that we don't endorse it. There have been multiple instances of conflicts that have arises on discord, and this is the way to curb the pollution spilling over onto D&D Wiki. I see this as a temporary solution. If we can vet discord at a later point, we should then remove the ban on links to the server. For now, this will resolve many problems. I also like the wiki format, and I don't use or understand all the benefits that users feel discord gives them. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2018 (MDT)

Oppose

  • I'm gonna vote oppose too. It's way too helpful as a messaging platform, works great as a means to contact people instantly, and allows new users to immediately chat with D&D Homebrew experts without having to wait on a talk page for help or advice. Even though there were incidents on the discord and I don't really know what most of these incidents entailed, we're all human beings, and I think we can all just forgive and forget. I really don't want to see the discord fall in numbers and I definitely feel like we can all work together and make the discord something that everyone can enjoy! :) --EpicBoss99 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • I'm also going to oppose this. The Discord server is way too useful to distance from the site in this way. While a discussion page might be a place for formal, slow burning debates, the Discord server allows for casual and informal discussion of nearly anything on the wiki with nearly instantaneous feedback between parties. It also helps foster a sense of community on the wiki, as there's something reassuring about talking with other users in real-time as opposed to forum-style billboard posts. Of course, there is the Tavern chatroom, but compared to the Discord, it's severely limited in its scope. --ZarHakkar (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • Absolutely going to oppose this. Right now the only option for communication is through user talk pages (which Suck and are not user friendly), and the tavern chat (which nobody uses because it sucks). If anything, the D&D wiki discord should be made official, but that's a vote for another time (I.e as soon as this one ends). Varkarrus (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
    • Pre-emptive response: I know I'm not a member of said discord at the moment, but I stand by what I said. I don't plan on rejoining that server unless its administration changes hands, or it becomes an official D&Dwiki server so that its administration can be held accountable. The latter isn't possible if the discord gets disavowed. Varkarrus (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • As BSFM said, this vote is about the link, so I'm voting oppose. While I personally opposed the link being placed due to Green Dragon's opposition to an official Discord server (this is the reason it was never and is not official), Green Dragon said it was fine to include the link on this page. So, while I did waiver on this topic in the above discussion, if we're doing an official vote, then I believe it's my responsibility to uphold precedent.
The only reason for removing the link is to disassociate the Wiki from Discord, but as users like EpicBoss have pointed out, the Discord server is not inherently problematic. If there are problems in the Discord server, they can (and will) be dealt with there. If users have grievances over there and take it out over here, they should also be dealt with here. There's no sense in going back on a ruling just because some users tried to start drama on D&D Wiki; if users stir things up, we'll deal with them as we always have, regardless of what social media platforms motivate their actions.
Of course, if Quincy thinks that we should remove all social media links — and I'm not saying for sure that he does — then that's another matter entirely and one which I think would lend more credence to the removal of the server link.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • Oppose; discord server links should remain, although I am not a member of the discord server unless you have another platform for rapid communication and interaction the discord server is an invaluable tool. I would like to see it also made official, but that is a discussion for another time. -- Kildairem 02:12, 26 October 2018 (PST)

Neutral

  • I'm on the fence here. As EpicBoss99 stated above, Discord is a useful tool for communication and collaboration, but as we've seen, there have been problems spilling out of it, and I'm not sure whether its usefulness outweighs its problems. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:05, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
Based on my time on the Discord, I really don't think the problems are stemmed from the Discord. In fact, I've had nothing but positive experiences with the Discord, especially getting to know the users of D&DWiki better. Because it's a place where people chat instantly, it definitely seems like all the arguments and stuff begin in the discord. However, people are people. Removing the discord isn't going to get rid of the disagreements between users. Besides, there have been lengthy arguments and problems between users even before the discord's creation. Therefore, in my opinion, the discord's usefulness definitely outweighs its problems. I hope this helps in making your decision! :D
--EpicBoss99 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Vote for making an official D&Dwiki Discord Server[edit]

Whether by making the existing one official, or by creating a new one, this community needs an official D&Dwiki discord server. It will have multiple benefits

1) Fulfills the same needs as the Tavern Chatroom but in a much more user friendly way

2) Supports much faster discussion and responses, in a much easier format, than wiki discussion pages.

3) Will require the staff to be held accountable to the same policies that apply to the wiki itself

First, we need more information about this idea before any voting would take place. What is the structure? How would it be run? Why should an admin on D&D Wiki need to be held responsible for an external site? How do we link the two communities together? What forces effect each online community? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2018 (MST)
The structure of a hypothetical D&D wiki discord server can be run very similarly to the existing D&D wiki discord server, if not identically. Anyone who is a site admin can also choose to accept the responsibilities of being an admin on the discord as well, as is already the case. Alternatively, I could see some nominations for people to solely be a discord admin, if the case ever arises that the discord needs more moderation than the site, and a hypothetical candidate only wants responsibilities over the discord server.
"Linking the two communities together" relies on the fallacious assumption that the wiki and the discord are two separate communities. While some people may choose to not participate on the discord, both the discord and the wiki are largely made up of the same active users, both share the same moderation team, and both are held to the same rules and standards. Similarly, the discord isn't an "external site," but an extension of this one. The unofficial discord does have methods of doing this already, however: a rule is in place that your discord nickname must be the same as your D&D wiki username. It's not like anyone will join the discord who isn't interested in being a member of the wiki as well.
There is nothing unprecedented about any of this: numerous online communities choose to have a discord server as well to serve as an extension of their community, much like the tavern chatroom is for us. Varkarrus (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2018 (MST)
I've also been in some communities that had a Discord presence, and they worked pretty much the same way as both our Discord and the Tavern work: they're extensions, but they're separate. I have seen users banned from Discord but not the reddit, or banned from the forum but not the chatroom. I've seen users banned from a wiki and its chatroom for different durations, and users banned from a wiki's forum and chatroom but not the wiki. Furthermore, there are a couple of users in Discord who aren't active or even present on the Wiki. Not many, but there's some.
I don't know about GD, but what I'd like to know is what this actually means for D&D Wiki. As you said, nothing would change on the Discord end. What would making it official entail? It seems to me — and please correct me if I'm wrong — that you're expecting this vote to implicitly create new policies governing D&D Wiki users' conduct in real-time chat. This is a fallacious assumption because the officialism of the server is not what determines that. It is established precedent that even conduct in the Tavern is considered irrelevant outside of the Tavern. If that's what you'd like to challenge, you could start with a discussion (not a vote) to debate the merits of that idea. Otherwise, could you please outline how, as GD put it, "we link the two communities together?"--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2018 (MST)
It's not like this is the be-all end-all solution here. Making it official is the first step, making the policies that govern it is step 2. There's no point in even starting step 2 until step 1 is complete. At least, that's what I thought... Varkarrus 142.55.40.54 09:25, 6 November 2018 (MST)
It's fine; we rarely use votes, so even I feel unfamiliar with the system, despite reading the Wikipedia help pages on it. Like GD and SgtLion both said elsewhere, votes should be a last resort for implementation of ideas where there's no consensus; in other words, they're the last step in the process. I mean, you've seen how things went with Brexit, right? They voted to leave but it took years to even work out how that'd go :P GD does seem open to the idea, however, so you should definitely keep giving your thoughts on it! What you've come up with is a good start, IMO, and I'm sure you and other users can refine the idea into something more concrete :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (MST)

Discussion

Eh, I'm going to go ahead and say it: #3 is not a good "benefit" for making an official Discord server and is inappropriate to list as one, in my opinion. The reason I say this is because it comes across as wanting to stretch the jurisdiction of D&D Wiki because someone you dislike has been naughty. As an analogy, why not make Papa John's the official pizza provider of D&D Wiki so that we can hold its staff accountable to the same policies that apply to D&D Wiki itself. Ignoring that a) all users are already held accountable in Discord, and b) the decision was already made that Tavern conduct cannot be held accountable outside of the Tavern (one of multiple rulings you appear to have been ignorant of in recent referendums), this "benefit" should be an effect of the change, not a benefit of it, for the reasons I gave above.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2018 (MST)
Quite a topic of contention these days and I think I am ready to share my thoughts. I really would like an official discord channel. I do not think you can have an official discord channel and not link the behavior of users between the two. An official D&D Wiki Discord Server needs to uphold the values, morals, ethics, etc., etc, as the website. Honestly, its pretty poopy that it needs mentioning because the wiki at a fundamental level is be kind and respectful. If you don't, you'll be warned. Why we shouldn't want that to exist across the platforms...I unno.
If my tune sounds different that's because it is. Before when Wiki Discord is this unofficial thing, then I thought and felt each platform should handle their bizz separately. For them to work together and be unified, I think the policies should be equal. It is fairly simple to "mute" a user on Discord if they are banned on the wiki rather than kicking users from the server or dealing with that stuff.
An official server, in my opinion, also needs consistency. Unprecedented channel names changing, user name changes in flux, rules and policies inacted overnight without full discussion all create an unstable environment. I would suggest Discord server changes be discussed on the wiki proper website. It would keep GD in the loop amongst other users, regardless of their interest in the social app. I think it would also help curb discussion escalating too quickly out of hand. Just a thought *shrug*
There are issues about external thingz being used and I don't think we should police those things. We have external images on our site. "oh, but bsfm, those images are free" okay. good for them. bah. tis a rant I'll refrain from.
It's been mentioned the admin channel as this secret planning section where people plot the demise of the world occurs (exaggeration? sure.) and I think the channel should be deleted or made read only. Read only serves like other pages that only admins can edit on the wiki. So if admins want to discuss something amongst one another let it be shared much like any read only page on the wiki. This may have already occurred so I apologize if this unnecessary.
I also think the controversial, adult, NSFW, etc., etc., channel needs deleted. The wiki doesn't have a page that naturally breeds toxicity, hate, anguish and frankly that channel has done more harm to users than just me. I think it is a trap for people to think they can discuss things and then they are disciplined because a rule was broke. (truly irony)
I find this to be my thoughts in a "nutshell". I think there are other things that bug me about the current state hence my absence but I would oh so love to return. Hopefully it has been getting better. I look forward to a positive and healthy mobile chat program that doesn't cause stress. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2018 (MST)
I actually agree with literally everything you just wrote. Any idea how we can spearhead this initiative, then? Varkarrus (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2018 (MST)
Sorry, but I don't :-( I think any feedback from my thoughts will help all of us move forward with this. Really happy you agree too! :-D ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2018 (MST)
While I think some issues you hold are unrepresentative of the actual state of the server, that also means that I have no problem with your solutions to them. As the "server owner" (and a D&D Wiki admin), I have always been willing to make changes solely in the interest of making users more comfortable. To be honest, I think this is a good spearhead. You gave concrete, specific instances of how and why both the server and D&D Wiki should benefit from the server being made official.
The external emotes are non-negotiable because I won't make any user — even if that user hasn't joined or spoken up about it yet — feel that they have to pay an external platform to get the same privileges as another user in an official D&D Wiki chatroom. All users should have feature-parity on Discord just as they do on D&D Wiki (with the exception of adminship, which is treated the same on Discord as it is on D&D Wiki). You mention that D&D Wiki has external images, but so does Discord, so everybody should be happy :)
Now that there's more details on how you want this to work, I can give some advice. First, do you want users to be held cross-accountable on Discord and D&D Wiki? I did initially create the server to be official and have always held myself and others to our high standards, so I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with this. But the current ruling from GD is that even conduct in the Tavern cannot be held accountable for outside of the Tavern. So the first step in this regard would be to create a discussion on changing this ruling and go from there. In the discussion, you should write out how it would work. Would infractions and punishment be applied universally (i.e. without exception) on a 1:1:1 basis? And would it only apply to conduct on official D&D Wiki channels? My problem with Vark's suggested implementation is that she seemed to want conduct in unofficial channels to be held accountable, which I think most people agreed was a gross violation of our jurisdiction and unfairly weighted to unofficial channels where more users knew each other; it would have, for example, held you accountable for conduct in unofficial Discord servers you shared with Vark, but wouldn't be able to hold Vark accountable for her conduct where we weren't aware of her presence. A more limited implementation that does not include, say, reddit's r/dnd and other unofficial channels, might be more accepted.
Wow, that was long! I think that's the biggest roadblock to what you want, so get that out of the way and everything else should be as easy as writing up a policy detailing what you wrote about. Of course we have to come to consensus on all this, but it's the start that counts :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2018 (MST)
  1. Yes, I would want users held cross-accountable on Official D&D Wiki platforms.
  2. I am not sure how much impact chat had when the Tavern was created. With the change of times and chat integral part of communities, perhaps rulings have changed.
  3. I-I think universal application of discipline was what I communicated. I think it sounds more frightening then what it really is. Simply put, you can't be a jerk in one place and operate in another. Users will be expected to be polite, respectful, etc. or not participate on D&D Wiki thingz. Like, if you wouldn't put it on the wiki, don't put it on the Discord then. I 'unno, maybe easier said then done. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2018 (MST)
You did communicate that; I was trying to communicate that you'd have to specify where exactly you want cross-accountability to be applied. I mention this because Vark's initial proposal was not specific enough, which is partly why it was shot down. The key here is to be as specific as possible, because GD (not to mention me, SgtLion and maybe others) are wary about doing this as-is, and details help us to go back and say, "this is how we agreed to implement it, so this is how we're conducting it." Does that make sense? If not, I'll try again tomorrow :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (MST)
For the time being, Discord and D&D Wiki website. When, if, others means of communication become more prevalent then discussing those seems appropriate. I’m skeptical other things become a thing due to the website/Discord darn near everything necessary for the community. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2018 (MST)
I think that this would work as a basic layover of our user conduct and user policies.
The next unanswered questions deal with its functionality. The external emojis are part of this. There are multiple functions on Discord that are not present with MediaWiki (and vise-versa). How do we verify a users identity across platforms? How would a user not be lured to just change their username? It would be bad to change your username to another users', break all sorts of warnings, and then get the wrong user on D&D Wiki banned. Also, there are pay-for features on discord (external emoji) that MediaWiki does not have. What policy are you intending that this is covered under? Since it doesn't exist for us, there is currently no policy for it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2018 (MST)
If you feel impersonating another user on the discord server is likely, here's how I'd prevent that from happening. Simply make new users only able to access a single channel on the discord until they verify their username. Probably what this would involve is: you say what your D&Dwiki username is, a moderator confirms it by posting on your talk page, and if verified, your server nickname is changed to match the wiki username. There is an option in servers to disallow users from changing their own nicknames, so this is a possible option. GamerAim says he feels external emojis should not be allowed (there is a server option to prevent users from using them, too), but I feel this should be something put to a separate vote later, since a currently untallied overwhelming majority of everyone else feels that banning external emojis is not necessary. Varkarrus (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2018 (MST)
Vark's user verification policy is identical to the way I do things. Geodude did become lax in the policy and didn't ask for much in the way of verification, but I'm sure he'll straighten up; I didn't bring issue with it before because of the lack of officialism.
As you say, there's no policy covering it, so external emotes are banned. As an explanation of how they work, they just allow you to use emotes from other servers. If it was just, "users upload their own emotes," I might be fine with it (but probably not), but the fact it requires users to join other servers to gain the emotes seals the deal for me. A D&D Wiki Discord server should be, to the best of our ability, isolated from other Discord servers. It should be administrated as an extension of D&D Wiki, not as an extension of the Discord community. There are certain Nitro perks that I cannot remove which can be used by paying subscribers to customize themselves in our server; namely, custom ID numbers and animated avatars. As such, Nitro subscribers can avail themselves to that functionality without limit :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2018 (MST)
"users upload their own emotes" is actually how external emojis are largely handled. People create a personal server, upload their emojis there, and use them. If they see an emoji from a different server that they like, they can 'steal' it. Again though, that's a discussion / vote I'm gonna start after this discussion / vote ends (assuming the vote passes) Varkarrus (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2018 (MST)
Users making new servers as a workaround for unlimited external emotes is still using emotes from another server. It might be a personal server created solely for emotes, but it's still a server and it's one that we don't administrate. People are free to use their external emotes in other servers that allow it; even if I could stop them from doing so, I would not, because I don't care about their use in non-D&D Wiki servers. The fact is, those emotes are not from D&D Wiki and external emotes are a function administrated by servers. This is no different from usernames being server-specific, and just as we don't allow users free reign over their usernames, neither do we allow free reign over external emotes. Admittedly, there are a few holes in our username policy (namely, people who don't confirm their D&D Wiki username can use whatever username they like), but we can always fix those loopholes if necessary.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2018 (MST)
As mentioned above, there already seems to be framework for verifying users to prevent account abuse. Regarding the emoji thing, I don't see any harmful/negative effects of allowing emojis. Certainly there are times I don't like them but that is the extent. I don't like them. I am not a proponent of not allowing things simply because of my preference. And in this case, I haven't heard anything negative about the emojis. Its been said,
I won't make any user — even if that user hasn't joined or spoken up about it yet — feel that they have to pay an external platform to get the same privileges as another user in an official D&D Wiki chatroom.
but really no one is making anyone do anything. No one is hurt by not paying for cosmetic feature in a chat room. It could be argued that people are hurt by not allowing it, since they DID spend money for a service that D&D Wiki won't allow. I think maybe it should be looked into why other communities don't allow them if they don't, or D&D Wiki chooses a different chat platform that won't restrict features people have paid for to support a service that the Wiki and its users are using. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2018 (MST)
To answer the question directly though, I don't think extra policy is needed because if the external emojis are abusive, rude, insensitive then there is already the "don't be a jerk" policy and warnings could/should be done for similar inappropriate behavior. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2018 (MST)
I don't see how something that discord offers as a pay-to-use service can be abusive, rude, or insensitive. I assume that the service has an idea of why they created these emojis. Do they have a detailed reason for using them?
So, we now know how policies would be enforced on discord, but how are they created? Where would the concensus take place, and what type of format would it use? How can multiple admins of the same position each effect the proceedings on discord, without having the server owner pull all the strings?
What is the position of a server owner, and how is it to be handled? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2018 (MST)
In my opinion, the only purpose the server owner position should have beyond that of an admin is to add and remove users from the admin role as appropriate. I have seen other servers fall apart because the server owner gave themselves veto power over the decisions of the rest of the moderation team's decisions and act like they're better than everyone else because they have a little crown next to their name, and I know that some users in our Discord feel or have felt that the current owner has behaved in a similar fashion to what I have described. It's not something that I want to get too into right now, but since GD asked about it I thought I'd just lightly touch on it.
Server policy should be decided through discussion and building consensus, as wiki policy is decided, and not by divine mandate from the owner or the admin team. Discussions about server policy should probably take place on the wiki, on this talk page. Discussion happens a lot faster on Discord than on the wiki, so having policy discussion take place here would make discussion easier to track and consensus clearer. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:14, 13 November 2018 (MST)
Agreed. This is how the server has always been conducted, and I doubt that anything will change that :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (MST)
First of all, "it's just cosmetics" doesn't work on me as an argument. If it's that inconsequential, then why is it so controversial? Secondly, D&D Wiki is not affiliated with Discord, regardless of whether we make the Discord server an official D&D Wiki channel of communication. I guess we're technically bound by their terms of use and all, but disallowing external emotes doesn't violate that. It's a permission that can be unchecked in the server settings. Discord itself allows for them to be disabled in servers, hence they are under the purview of each server and D&D Wiki is not affiliated with other servers. If users want to link external images, they can do it using the normal method, because paying Discord should not entitle anyone to special privileges in a server that is not affiliated with D&D Wiki. And again, I'm not stopping them from using external emotes in other servers, nor am I stopping them from using the other "cosmetic" benefits of Nitro that I mentioned.
But to answer GD directly, the server owner position means...nothing, really. All other admins have the same permissions as me and can make their own changes or undo mine. As you said on Quincy's RFA, your position as D&D Wiki owner isn't that meaningful. Also, if I'm reading your question on policy creation correctly, if Discord is bound by D&D Wiki policy, then policies should be decided on D&D Wiki, IMO. Not everyone is on Discord, so I think the Wiki should remain the place for deciding policy.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2018 (MST)
I still think we should be saving the emoji discussion for afterwards. Discussing it is meaningless if the server isn't even official yet. Varkarrus (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2018 (MST)
I agree that this particularly discussion is not of immediate concern to making it official.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (MST)
My question actually was not just about external emoji, it was "The next unanswered questions deal with its functionality. The external emojis are part of this. There are multiple functions on Discord that are not present with MediaWiki (and vise-versa)." I now want to ask about undoing edits. This is something not on MediaWiki, and as a platform that focuses on constructive edits as one of its pillars, removing something for everybody to see seems very very suspicious. Was it harassment, belittling, or even racist? Where is the documentation for a structured investigation?
The server-owner analogy makes sense. How is conflict dealt with, and how can users use dispute resolution? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2018 (MST)

I updated my opposition vote to state that I oppose any action to make Discord an official communications channel until the external emotes dispute is resolved. Also, dispute my attempts to help other users in drafting new policies for it, I'd also like to declare that I am indefinitely opposed to cross-accountability for the reasons I've given before.

Moving to GD's next question, I've found no good answer to the problem of users and admins deleting or editing Discord replies. There's not documentation in place for such structured investigations. And before someone says, "you can take screenshots," keep in mind that even screenshots which aren't doctored don't always tell the full story. I recall Geodude had a potential solution to this, so hopefully he can chime in and solve this? :)

Finally, users can dispute resolution in the #help channel and/or by mentioning @admins. Conflict has been dealt with by following policy as interpreted by admins. The same as D&D Wiki.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2018 (MST)

Support

I, of course, support. For reasons summed above, and in the previous vote to not delete the link. Varkarrus (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2018 (MDT)
I’d like something more official yes. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

  • I'm opposing this vote for the simple reason that GD said he doesn't want an official Discord server, and that was his decision. Despite what some may think, the lack of an "official" Discord server is not some nefarious loophole which I put in place to abuse innocent users. I tried to make it official, GD said no, and that was that. So, I think this vote is invalid on the basis of no authority to enact the change.
That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to it on principle because nothing would need to change whatsoever; the #adult-theme channel would still be exempt from most rules, #casual would still have a lax atmosphere/administration, and drama would still be disallowed. And of course, I'd get the sweet credit and vindication for having the idea in the first place :)
Though, to play devil's advocate, I'd like to refute the first two benefits (the third one is irrelevant and/or inappropriate as a benefit, so I won't bother refuting it, but can try to explain why if anyone asks): Discord is a third-party website that requires users to make a second account. The server has a lot of channels, which can be confusing. It might be more versatile and functional, but I wouldn't call it more user-friendly. Secondly, the Tavern also fulfills the benefit of being real-time, and the Discord server has actually been less active than the Wiki the past week or two. In fact, it's been less active than the Tavern.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2018 (MST)
I'm updating my opposition to state that I oppose this vote until such time as it is formally agreed-upon to keep in place the ban on external emotes.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2018 (MST)
  • I'm open to new ideas, but as GD and I said, this needs structuring at least. --SgtLion (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (MST)
Shouldn't the structuring come after we know whether or not we're gonna go ahead with doing it? Or would it be better to start a discussion elsewhere, and when that discussion has ended retry the vote? I assumed the former made more sense, but if I'm wrong that's okay. Varkarrus 142.55.40.54 09:25, 6 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

As the Discord server is owned by GamerAim it is solely under the power and authority of GamerAim to decide if they feel their server should be designated 'official'. Even if it weren't/or they do agree with the vote, this kind of decision should discussed and consensus evaluated before putting to a vote.
As such, this vote is effectively pointless, unless you discuss with the server owner and you all agree to go ahead with it and only after we as a community have discussed the potential moves forward. It's the same as making a vote that says "Let's make the Whitehouse an official D&D Wiki base" out of the blue. --SgtLion (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2018 (MST)
The vote says "an" official Discord server. Obviously, the one I made would be the best choice since it already exists and has a good user base; there's no point in making an official Discord server if all we do is fracture the user base. However, if I declined, and GD insisted that we must have an official Discord server, it would be mandated that a new one be made. That said, GD has insisted on quite the opposite, and holding a vote on this matter without first discussing it with him is unwise because there's no certainty that he would uphold the result — and to be clear, I don't think he's under any obligation to uphold it unless he says he'll uphold it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2018 (MST)
Ah, that does make some more sense, thanks. --SgtLion (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (MST)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors