Forum:CT:Rewording of the Discord rules

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Rewording of the Discord rules
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As we continue to strive toward a more welcoming environment on the wiki, it's time for us to update our Discord rules to less hostile language. The current wording is very snarky and reminescent of a past when many Wookieepedians were completely intolerant of anyone not automatically adjusting to our culture. While we still want to maintain the professional and constructive nature of the Discord server, we can do so without coming off as pretentious. I therefore propose the following updated rules. Changes are in italics.

  1. Be respectful. Our policy on personal attacks applies on Discord just like it applies anywhere on the wiki. Vicious abuse is grounds for sanctions. Everyone should treat each other with kindness and respect.
  2. Maturity counts. While we love to have fun, it is important that we do so in a mature manner. Inappropriate humor, especially humor at the expense of others and sexual humor, is not permitted.
  3. Stay on topic. Users are expected to remain on-topic with respect to each channel's purpose, which is stated at the top of each channel. Real-world politics and/or religion may only be discussed in relation to the Star Wars franchise.
  4. Our official language is English. While we welcome users and readers from all over the world, English should be used at all times so that everyone in the server can understand and participate in the conversation.
  5. No spamming. Don't say the same thing over and over because no one is responding to you. Respect that the other people in the server may simply not be interested in the topic and move on. It's ok if everyone else doesn't share your passion for the topic. Similarly, please do not randomly ping or mention other members if they are not participating in or relevant to the discussion.
  6. No roleplaying. By and large, regulars find roleplaying to be distracting. We are here to be productive and have constructive dialogue.
  7. Do not delete messages. Users may not delete their own messages from any channel. Any messages that have been deleted are recorded in Wookieepedia's official audit log.
  8. No rumors or leaks. If it is not announced through official Disney, Lucasfilm, or partner publisher or developer channels, then it should not be discussed on the server.

To compare, the current rules can be found here.

Support

  1. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 06:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  2. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  3. Zed42 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  4. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 07:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  5. YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  6. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  7. Imperators II(Talk) 09:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  8. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 09:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  9. Fred's responses are respectful, mature and on-topic *wink* The safe space really won me over! Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  10. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  11. 01miki10 Open comlink 10:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  12. Definitely an improvement. VergenceScatter (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  13. "You are not a Jedi, or an Imperial commander, or a Sith, or a Mandalorian." :P JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  14. That rule was for you, Master Macaroni :P OOM 224 17:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  15. While the spirit is the mostly same, I appreciate the change of tone. Regarding "political" discussion, and while I'm often taking part of said discussions, I completely and wholeheartedly support this change, per the argumentation provided by Fred below. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  16. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  17. Dentface (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  18. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  19. Total support. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 01:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  20. Fred just doesn't miss! Cumulonimbus Cloud MonMothmaSymbol-RebelDossier 01:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  21. Wok142 (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  22. Efe Önem (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  23. Fan26 (Talk) 22:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Rule 2's "Inappropriate humour" is extremely subjective to individuals and is not clear on what is or isn't "appropriate". "Humour at the expense of others" typically falls under Discord's ToS I believe around various isms. "sexual humour" means a simply wink react to something phrased a certain way could land someone in trouble, I believe unfairly. Rule 3 effectively bans politics and religion, arguably some of the content in the pride channel would fall under this (I personally don't think some things are political but it is clear that there are other people who do, whether they are in the server or not). Opposing for these reasons, though I'm supportive of the overall sentiment of the changes. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We literally already enforce the no sexual humor rule because minors are present in the server. We can’t really spell out exactly every single word or phrase that can’t be said. That’s not practical. “Sexual humor” is clear enough for people to know the line. Nobody thinks a winky face is sexual humor. As for banning politics and religion, see my reply below. WP:Pride is not political, as the topics they cover on the wiki are not political. The project covers LGBTQIA+ individuals, not real world government policy. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 07:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I agree with Manoof about Rule 3. Politics is almost always discussed in a very civil way. The rule current rule is perfect, in my opinion: "Real-world politics and/or religion may only be discussed with unanimous consent." If no one has anything against it, politics can be discussed. Banning politics in any case (if not related to Star Wars) seems excessive to me. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 07:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I can guarantee that these conversations make certain members uncomfortable and that people would rather avoid them, especially those responsible for moderating such conversations. A server with the main purpose of facilitating wiki collaboration is not really the place to discuss controversial real-world topics like religion and politics. These conversations inevitably alienate people who don’t agree with those partaking in the conversation, causing them to feel unwelcome in the community. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 07:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)y
      • Thanks for the explanation: The last thing that I want are users that feel uncomfortable (or worse) about a discussed topic. Although I still believe that completely banning something is rarely the best solution, if this could help the community, I'm willing to support it. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 07:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Just keep in mind that this community is a safe haven for many people who want to escape the political reality of the world for some time and just experience Star Wars. I know I for one feel that way. I enjoy this place because it’s a break from the controversial topics of the real world. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 08:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I totally understand and respect that. I sometimes use the Wook for the very same reason. The only thing that does not completely convince me is that sometimes political discussion start as a "natural" evolution of a former discussion, yet I understand that this could make several users feel uncomfortable. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 08:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Full support, but, just out of curiosity, does this imply there is going to be stricter enforcement of some of these rules? I don't feel like a rule-breaker myself but I do feel like a few of these (mainly 2 and 3) are loosely enforced at the moment. Wok142 (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Rules 2 and 3 do specify new restrictions that are already currently modestly enforced, but will now become codified. While this will result in more consistent enforcement, it shouldn’t result in over-enforcement. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 09:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks for the clarification! Wok142 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)