Last month I brought up a discussion forum over some changes that I'd like to see in the Discord, and it's time to finally bring these propositions to a vote. 寧靜 00:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The 3 propositions are as follows:
Double Counter is a bot used to try and identify/prevent alt accounts from joining the Discord. The bot is incredibly ineffective, however, with numerous complaints of sketchy/scam ads being used to fund it. Added with no known consensus, I now seek to have it removed as its only function is to frustrate and deter new users attempting to join the Discord
Another change made to the Discord without any consensus, was the decision to lock important editing channels, so that unverified users aren't able to utilize them. Historically speaking, the Discord has been a popular and easy way for people to ask questions. Not all of these people though will even have a wiki account, and forcing them to create one just to utilize the editing channels, is completely asinine and counter-productive. I ask that any such channel locks be lifted going forward
The verification system is an archaic one that does little more than deter potential new users from joining up on the Discord. Our Discord is not a large one, boasting less than 200 users, with only around a dozen of them being consistently active. There's just no reason to justify having our new users jump through hoops in order to gain access. Users can still optionally verify if they want the role, and of course rights-users will need to verify in order to gain any of their rights, but otherwise I suggest we retire the verification system for now, and maybe look at bringing it back should we see a significant increase in activity in the future
The risk of honest people being barred from entering the server and possibly even getting scammed by keeping Double Counter is bigger than the risk of alts slipping past by removing it. The Appalachian 17:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
It has only served as an unnecessary obstacle anytime I've have to enter the Discord to report something during dead hours wikiside or view linked Discord conversations. Great Mara (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
As I believe in human moderation being a key item and bots letting people through when they are not supposed to is a very risky design in the moderation of servers. Lucas_The_Lemon_Eater (lucasgames8957) (Talk) 1948 1-16-23 (EST)
As others have brought up, I wish there was an alternative presented for Double Counter, or that the potential issues its removal might inflict were mentioned. However, I’m still happy to support actions that make it easier to bring new editors into the fold. 00:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
No[]
While I agree we could likely do better than Double Counter, I am opposed to eliminating it without a replacement set up. I have moderated many servers that lacked basic bot filtering/verification and it sucked. So many spam/compromised accounts joining. And you don't even see them half the time. They silently privately message users their scams. -Gilpo1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreeing with Aidan here. As a long time user of verification bots/systems, I believe any server, big or small, would be remiss to not have some form of alt/spam/bot deterrent. Scratchy 15:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
While I support replacing Double-Counter because of its inadequacies, I don't support leaving the server completely open. We just have too many recurring bad actors. Let's discuss options, then I'm open to changing my vote in the future. intrepid3591/16/24 6:04pm CT
Why not spend a couple hours on it to try to fix it? DynV (talk)
Neutral[]
Double counter is not fit for purpose, but I disagree with the idea of removing verification all together. I am voting neutral because the impression that this vote gives me is that if it is removed no effort will be made to replace it. Aiden4017 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
As Aiden noted, exploring alternatives might be worth it. 【Ｔａｇａｚｉｅｌ】☏ 10:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
Please do not edit other user's votes.
Yes is for opening up the channels, for example the Editing Bullpen, to all users verified and unverified, while no is for keeping the channel locks as they are
Yes[]
Feel strongly about this one, there's no reason why a verified account is needed to access wiki-related channels. Those without verified accounts could still very well contribute to editing and page related discussions. Savior DJ (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The wiki should be for the readers, not just a group of editors. Open it up and let people ask questions! LaymansReign (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I feel the same as DJ and LR. Making these channels accessible as possible should make newcomers feel welcome without having to jump through hoops just to ask a question. LLxMystic (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Jbour, this is clear for me. I'm a little confused why anyone would join a wiki Discord and be given access to everything but the wiki parts.
I agree that we should have some wiki-related channels for public users for questions and suggestions and whatnot. But I am opposed to opening all of them up to non-verified users. I don't want to see the cesspool of the meme and general chat chans filter into the 'business' chans. Nor should non-editors be weighing in on matters that require a vote, etc. Not to say they might have valuable feedback on voted matters, but it clouds the discussion and makes issues feel more supported or more opposed than is represented by the actual voting members. Perhaps there's a better way of handling all this. I'm also opposed to the blanket statement at the end of effectively banning locked chans from here on out. Perhaps we should have focused on opening up the other chans that are still hidden from verified users as has been discussed many times... -Gilpo1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
If you can't spend 3 mins to subscribe to a wiki, why should its discord users spend time to help with your editing? DynV (talk)
A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
Please do not edit other user's votes.
Yes is for giving all new users immediate access to the server and its channels, while no is for continuing to require going through the verification system
I find the reasoning for this sorely lacking, and in my opinion many of the current issues with verification and how it is handled stem from double counter specifically, not the idea of verification. The verification system is not there as a metric of server popularity, it is a way of making sure people are actually people and not bots, and making it harder for banned users to evade their ban. Aiden4017 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Same repeated here: While I agree we could likely do better than Double Counter, I am opposed to eliminating it without a replacement set up. I have moderated many servers that lacked basic bot filtering/verification and it sucked. So many spam/compromised accounts joining. And you don't even see them half the time. They silently privately message users their scams. -Gilpo1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd vote yes if the # of channels was *very* limited to skip verification. 3 mins to make a wiki account isn't a lot to ask for. DynV (talk)
I would like to see some kind of replacement for Double Counter, but only if it is user friendly and non-intrusive. Verifying with your wiki account should be optional, but enough to skip other means of verification (at the moment you need to verify twice to get access to all channels). Changed my vote to no to make it clearer that I have an issue with Double Counter specifically, not with verification in general. The Appalachian 18:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral[]
Similarly, having access to all channels might be overblowing it, but neither is keeping them locked down. Perhaps discussing alternative solutions? 【Ｔａｇａｚｉｅｌ】☏ 10:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Excluded votes[]
I would like to see some kind of replacement for double counter, but only if it is user friendly and non-intrusive. Verifying with your wiki account should be optional, but enough to skip other means of verification (at the moment you need to verify twice to get access to all channels). The Appalachian 17:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Changed my vote The Appalachian 18:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Results[]
Vote Double Counter - Passes, it will be removed.
Vote Open up the general channels to all users - Passes, general channels will be opened.
Vote Optional verification - This is beyond my comfort zone, so I'll leave this decision with Tagaziel, I'm fine with both.
I'll direct the implementation to Tagaziel, as he is now the owner of the Nukapedia Discord server and can make the necessary changes. Jspoel 18:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
00:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Savior DJ (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
17:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
00:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
While I agree we could likely do better than Double Counter, I am opposed to eliminating it without a replacement set up. I have moderated many servers that lacked basic bot filtering/verification and it sucked. So many spam/compromised accounts joining. And you don't even see them half the time. They silently privately message users their scams. -Gilpo1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
15:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
1/16/24 6:04pm CT
Double counter is not fit for purpose, but I disagree with the idea of removing verification all together. I am voting neutral because the impression that this vote gives me is that if it is removed no effort will be made to replace it. Aiden4017 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
1/16/24 6:10pm CT
18:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)