UESPWiki talk:Discord

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

"IRC and UESP" section[edit]

I don't have time to do it myself to reword, adapt, etc this section, and I also am not bold enough as an editor and don't want to go making edits about policy or etiquette even where it would seem uncontroversial without someone else's thoughts on the matter, but I feel like this section needs to be adapted for the Discord page. Even though it's understood by all of the regular users who have migrated over from other communications areas, it doesn't hurt to have it on record for other people to reference here.

IRC is a useful tool for real-time discussions with other UESP editors. Often questions can be answered more quickly in IRC than by posting them on the wiki. However, IRC also has limitations that need to be taken into account. Any time you need to be sure that information is correct (such as a fact about the game, or being sure of someone else's opinion), it is better to use the wiki than IRC. In real life chatting with someone over lunch is quick and convenient, but still verbal agreements can not replace written agreements. Similarly, the wiki rather than IRC should be used for anything that needs to be "in writing".
Some of the reasons why IRC is not an appropriate forum for formal discussions, such as making decisions or establishing consensus, are:
  • The entire UESPWiki community needs to be able to contribute to any such discussions.
  • Formal discussions need to be recorded for future reference.
  • Contributors need to be free to take their time to read what others have said, reach an opinion, write their comments, and review those comments before contributing.
For example, if you have an idea, IRC is a useful place to get preliminary feedback from other editors. Other editors might provide suggestions about how to improve the idea, or be able to point to other similar examples. Based on the discussion, you might choose to substantially revise your initial idea, or maybe everyone liked the idea as is, and now you feel more confident about proceeding.
However, even if everyone in IRC approved of your idea, that does not mean that you have the UESP community's consensus. The guidelines on the consensus article should still be used to determine whether or not the idea needs to be discussed on the wiki. When you summarize the idea on the wiki, you should only present your own opinions; do not try to speak for anyone else who was involved in the IRC discussion. Anyone else is then free to contribute to the wiki discussion with their opinion, including any editors who were involved in IRC. And it is very possible that other editors may state something very different than what they stated in IRC (i.e., they misunderstood your proposal initially, or made a typo in their response, or even just changed their mind after thinking about it some more). Only opinions posted to the wiki discussion should be taken into account.
These considerations also apply to IRC policy. This wiki article and its talk page are where IRC policy is established, not the IRC channel.

-damon  talkcontribs 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Until someone rewrites this section, I've changed the link on our Discord page to point back to the same section on the IRC page. Nicholasleedust (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Special characters[edit]

Hey all. I wanted to propose the implementation of a rule that prohibits the use of special characters in nicknames on Discord. The special characters do not show up properly on mobile, which is potentially confusing to new users. Additionally, the special characters make it incredibly difficult to ping users. This is especially important for users who hold rank, as it may be necessary to get their attention to handle a disruption of the server's functions. I wanted to propose this for discussion rather than add it to the Discord page, since it is technically a policy change and therefore requires consensus. What do you all think? Nicholasleedust (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Right clicking the user's name allows you to mention them if needed. I don't think we need to outright prohibit special characters for the sake of unsupported machines. As a compromise, maybe any user with a rank should avoid special characters? —Legoless (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
While I'm generally against special characters, the question arises where we would put the line. There are a lot of "special" characters that are common in certain lauguages, such as äöüß in geman, or éèíû and stuff... So, would someone whose name is Jörg (which is a pretty valid german name) and wants to use his real name as his username, be forbidden from doing to? -- SarthesArai Talk 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Or even worse, something beginning with a special character ("Åland" etc), which would probably run into the same problem with manual mentions. —Legoless (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
My primary concern with special characters is the use of them in the entire user name. When the entire name is special characters, it renders it completely unrecognisable on mobile platforms. Additionally, characters as Sarthes mentioned above display just fine on mobile. It's the characters that are designed the look like standard English characters but unavailable on a keyboard or with Alt+#### codes that fail to display. I have a couple examples of users with such names, but I do not wish to call anyone out unnecessarily on the wiki. If you want examples, let me know. Nicholasleedust (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Guest accounts[edit]

Discord tells me I have to register to post in the channels. The article is lying. KShrimp (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry, yes, we had to change our security on Discord after a spate of trolling and didn't update the page. --Enodoc (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Rules[edit]

Since the discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard started, it has become clear that the rules for the discord server need to be worked on. For reference, these are the current rules, and these are the rules staff are expected to follow.

After some discussion with the active users on Discord, we have a couple of rules drafts started: one by Lady N and one by myself. I'd invite anyone interested to read them over and give feedback if you want.

The biggest point of concern, at least for me, is the rule about inflammatory/hate speech. In my draft, it's very open-ended and dependent on the context of the conversation and the users involved. The problem I see (and other staff members mentioned) is that this has high potential to be applied inconsistently, with active users being favored over newer people because we know them well enough to know when they're joking. But other solutions, such as coming up with a list of banned words, have the drawback of being overly rigid and not allowing for cultural differences (example: an American calling me a c**t would have a very different implication from an Australian using that word). So suggestions on this would be welcomed.

Some other things I think should be discussed/clarified:

  • Enforcement methods
  • Rules for staff members

I'll be posting a link to this on the AN, CP, and on Discord, so I hope we can have some constructive conversation! --FioFioFio (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the rules are for the most part just rewordings of the common-sense everyday user rules, and there are still a few things that could be expanded upon. Since staff accountability was a big issue for myself and most other users who had a complaint against the staff, I feel like that's an area that needs to be expanded on better. My gist of the staff rules as they sit are:
  1. Don't publicly share private conversations without the user's consent. That's pretty common sense and goes along for all users really.
  2. Ask other staff for help if you have questions.
  3. Any disagreement with other staff should be handled in a staff channel.
  4. A lame, dumbed down version of Etiquette
  5. Don't delete emojis without discussion
These read to me as staff-to-staff conduct and rules, and that's fine, but there are important things that are missing regarding staff-to-user conduct.
I feel like so that there are no issues on what is appropriate general conduct, that should be clearly written out and right now it isn't. Staff are supposed to be held to a significantly higher standard than the average user because as the recent discussions have proven, it's easy for the actions of staff to create rifts in the community. If I were writing out the staff rules, and this is just my opinion, I would make a point to include the non-Wik specific lines from the Etiquette policy verbatim on the rules page just so that the average user and staff alike have no excuse not to see those lines, regardless of where they found a join link at.
I also feel like it should be made very, very clear in the rules that staff are held to the same standards -- stricter standards even -- than other users, and if you ever feel like there's been misconduct or abuse on the part of a staff member or if you feel like the issue hasn't been resolved the way you want, then it's absolutely okay and encouraged to go to another member of staff and talk about what happened or to come over to the wiki and make a post on the AN, even if you don't have an account and wish to just do it as an anonymous user.
During the Discord discussion on the AN, I was absolutely disgusted by how many people I spoke to on other platforms that were uncomfortable with the atmosphere that the staff created in the Discord and the fact that they were afraid to speak up because they were afraid that there would be retribution for it. The easiest way to fix that is to make sure that the expectations of what staff conduct should be and approriate conflict resolution methods are prominently written out in the rules section so that there's no excuse for it to not be read or referenced by everybody, staff and user alike. -damon  talkcontribs 05:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
As the resident Australian, I can confirm that that word is used non-offensively. If it helps, I agree to have that word banned (if only because its our word and you can't use it).
On a more serious note - maybe a warning in these circumstances, perhaps warn the user? (Since no matter what, there will be difference in culture). Timeoin (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with either version, Fio. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 06:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Both versions are basically the same, but Fio's seems more professionally presented and written (at the moment anyway). It's not that much different from the IRC rules too, barring the Discord-related ones. I also prefer Fio's "open" version of the hate speech, but I don't think its as open as it looks. By avoiding naming all the types of isms you include them all, whereas naming them opens it up for someone to suggest they are OK just because its not on the list. I don't see the rule from IRC that image links must be labeled (some people don't appreciate kitten ambushes). A quick reminder written as a rule that any discussions/decisions made in the chatrooms are not binding on the wiki, they must be taken to the wiki to be binding, though formative discussions are more than welcome (i.e. taking a vague idea to something substantial in order to post a substantive argument on the wiki). A rule that bots need approval before use, unless that is no longer wanted/required. Founder rank needs mentioned if it is noticeably differentiated from Admin, even just listed under Admin as a special status.
I'd like to mention a couple of IRC-related things that may help inform the rules (no criticism is intended this time). The channel was PG-13, with that reminder to avoid mature-topics, but they were not banned, and it was not the fault/responsibility of anyone who said anything along those lines for exposing a young person to those topics, given that they were coming from the games. That said it is easy to discuss those topics without being explicit, and nudges to keep things sanitary were not uncommon. If I recall correctly, swearing of any sort was frowned upon, even minimal but consistent swearing would get you a telling-off.
For punishment (in general) there operated a basic three-strike system, depending on the offence. First a warning to stop, then a warning to stop or be kicked, then kicked. If they came back and continued, then a ban would be enacted, the length generally a guessing game on how long to put them off coming back, starting at a day for serious bans. Some offences would result in an immediate kick and ban, spamming and gore/hate/sexual images for instance. Getting the bans right is tricky but keeping similar offences to the same time is a good plan. PS. Is the Tea Party Moderators group a set name, it seems it could be named something else given the names link to a certain political group (from the perspective of this non-US wikian at least). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
So a few things that could be clarified here for you @Silencer;
I don't see the rule from IRC that image links must be labeled How images work on Discord, they do not need to be labeled. The images are automatically rendered within the client, and don't need to be clicked on.
A rule that bots need approval before use, unless that is no longer wanted/required. For a bot to be added to the server requires an Admin to allow it for the most part. Although it is possible to make a bot with a normal account and invite it to a server, this is very unlikely. Perhaps it could be added but I don't see a reason to at the moment. It hasn't been an issue on the Discord yet.
Founder rank needs mentioned if it is noticeably differentiated from Admin, even just listed under Admin as a special status. All founder does is make your name purple. It doesn't change where your name is listed on the server. It's just a 'thank you' for being one of the first 20 or so that joined the server when it was created a little over a year ago.
If I recall correctly, swearing of any sort was frowned upon, even minimal but consistent swearing would get you a telling-off. I would be very much against this. For the most part we're all adults here. I think we're responsible enough to not use a lot of swearing at the same time mature enough to not be offended by more colorful language as long as it isn't out of hatred or discriminatory in nature.
Lastly, A quick reminder written as a rule that any discussions/decisions made in the chatrooms are not binding on the wiki, they must be taken to the wiki to be binding, though formative discussions are more than welcome (i.e. taking a vague idea to something substantial in order to post a substantive argument on the wiki). I think if a rule like this is to be added, then it needs to be clarified what can and cannot be 'decided' on the server. I do not see anything wrong with asking how someone should go about formatting a page, or how something should be worded in a way that fits the style guidelines. Small things like that should be okay on the discord. However I do agree that any issues that revolve around changing policies that can change the entire site, or anything larger than your average edit should be taken here. Would you agree with that? JarlUlfric (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say, on that last point, that wiki content and policy should be discussed on the wiki, while wiki formatting and style would be fine to discuss on Discord. The thing that is likely to cross over the most is content, as discussion on content will inevitably come up, and if such a discussion on Discord is moving in a direction where consensus on content is required, that is the point it should be taken to the wiki. --Enodoc (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it "owner" then, whatever the role was that caused an issue that I think Daveh now has, but on the page there should probably be a full list explaining all the colours and roles, just to absolutely clear what they mean. Obviously then there is no need to label images if they appear. A section on desired bot use and the list of authorised bots should be on the page, and if they require an admins authority then there is no need for a rule, but if that can be bypassed/avoided then there should be a rule. The swearing was guidance of how it was previously handled, this is something that can only be decided by those who use Discord, but remember the desired PG-13 level of the channel (persistent swearing in a movie will earn it a higher-age rating, as well as multiple uses of stronger swear words). "Nothing is binding" should be enough, because it does not rule out having a full discussion on the channel, it just means it can/would be overruled by as little as one dissenter on the wiki. It would actually be possible to have a "binding" discussion if no dissension was made on the wiki, all it does it make it clear that anything said/posted on the wiki has more "authority" than anything said in Discord. Discord, and previously IRC, is a handy tool for persuading people around to your way of thinking, so that what might be a difficult change to get accepted has some support from the beginning and you don't spend a month getting people to change their mind, and then another month to accept the actual change. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The role that Daveh has on the server is "bureaucrat" and as far as I know he is the only person who has that rank. I think the best way to word such a rule about the wiki/discord issue would be to say "The wiki is where all formal decisions are decided. Asking simple questions and wanting editing advice is okay here, but serious concerns about the wiki must be taken there." or along those lines. One of the reasons why a lot of the discord users have fired back at some of the people who don't use the Discord is because they believe that they don't want to the discord to be able to discuss wiki matters at all. I think it's important to word the rule in a way that lets them know that small matters like asking advice on style guidelines and what not is okay. Them knowing that small stuff like that is okay on the Discord would go a long way to mending this divide between users. JarlUlfric (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

() That is a problem of perception. Absolutely everything about the wiki can be discussed on Discord, even serious concerns. There is no requirement for anything to be discussed on the wiki, despite what even I may have said in other discussions (if a single person can make a change without discussion on the wiki, why can't a group have a discussion and one person make the change). Some matters, mainly concerning policy changes, advise discussion before major and sometimes even minor changes, and that can only be binding on the wiki, but discussions can still take place on Discord. Anyone who says something wiki-related cannot be discussed on Discord is wrong (excepting of course such things as ongoing administrative action). There certainly won't be any topic bans for Discord coming from the wiki that do not already come from related policies (etiquette, interaction bans, etc). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Both sets of rules proposed look good. I think Fio's are a bit more comprehensive overall, though, so I'd suggest using those as a base. I feel Damon made a number of very good points on the issue of accountability, so I think we should include the paragraph near the end of Lady N's rules that talks about staff being human and what to do if you disagree with a staff decision. Even for what might appear to be the most obvious ban, there should always be a recourse available to all users, in case of a misunderstanding or a misapplication of the rules, and every user should be aware of what their options are. On the other hand, if Lady N's rules are used as a base instead of Fio's, I'd suggest removing the part that names specific companies from the "no flaming" section, as that runs the risk of making it appear as though we're subordinate to those companies in some way. The rest of this is going to jump around a bit as I randomly respond to different points in the rules and above responses. :)
Hate Speech: I'm really not big on banned words because they invariably catch something perfectly benign, or at least less problematic than they were intended to (e.g., mind-fuck, a bundle of faggots, retarded growth). Granted, some of those terms and others like them are unlikely to come up in most conversations, but the minute you make a hard banned words list, someone's either going to innocently find a legitimate use, or deliberately do so just for the challenge. Plus, people will just use asterisks or spaces to work around the list anyway. Far better to encourage productive, polite discussion and only take action if the person won't comply. And on that note, I've always been a fan of the three-strike system Silencer mentioned. That was our customary method in IRC, and I think it makes perfect sense for Discord as well.
Discord Servers: I briefly mentioned this to Fio in a PM earlier, but unless there's a good reason for the distinction that I'm not thinking of, I think the rule about not posting other Discord servers without staff approval should be combined into the same rules as posting links to personal fan-art, blogs, etc. We obviously don't want people posting, for example, invites to white-supremacist servers or what have you, but the same thing applies to any of the other types of links too, so they can probably just be lumped together.
Doxxing: While potentially a very serious offense, this should be verified with the user in question before being assumed to be serious. I'll use myself and our former administrator Nephele as examples here. For me, even though I don't mention my name specifically on my user page, I've made it very easy to find, and several people regularly refer to me as "Rob" in posts here on the wiki. Yes, it's also short for "Robin", but it's not common to shorten "Robin" to "Rob". I'm perfectly comfortable with people knowing my name and the city I live in, and even using it publicly; it's only if someone publishes more than that that I'd object. On the flip side, for Nephele, I only found out her real name by accident after several years on the wiki (in a situation somewhat similar to Fullerton's, now that I think about it). I doubt there are more than three or four people here who know it, so doxxing her in any way whatsoever, even if it was only to other staff, would likely be considered very serious.
Privacy: I'd suggest adding something to the effect that if you really feel something in a non-public discussion (e.g., PM, another server, or staff-only channel) is problematic, share it with a single admin or with Dave, depending on the situation. That keeps the information reasonably contained, but still allows action to be taken in the event of a situation like the one kitkat mentioned on AN, where a low-level staff member was saying completely inappropriate things to her in a PM and trying to use the fact that it was private as some kind of shield.
Tea Party Moderators: If the name is kept, it should probably be explained somewhere where this name comes from. Eventually, if others ask about it, most will know and will explain that it has nothing to do with the US political Tea Party.
Discord Server Owner: It's not directly related to rules, but per Silencer's point, I would agree with adding the Owner role to the wiki page, just so people are aware of the full staff structure. As he suggests, I'd go with a sub-paragraph (like "Bureaucrat" is now) explaining what additional abilities the owner has that other administrators don't.
On/Off-wiki Discussions: Even on IRC, there were often discussions of "how to" or the beginnings of content discussions, since live chats often flow a lot better than wiki ones do. The binding/not-binding rule Silencer mentions in his second message could work well and would allow full conversations to be had on Discord. There's also something to be said for kitkat's point about not suddenly dropping a decision on the wiki when all the discussion was on Discord, though. I can remember a few times in IRC where we'd get to a certain point and then realize that something was a more involved discussion and take it over to the wiki after that, each summarizing our views quickly and then continuing conversation from there, so that's another option. Or we could use all of these options, as we think necessary.
Etiquette: I agree with Damon's points about etiquette and stricter standards for staff. Let's spell the important portions out as part of the policy itself. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Discord Servers: There was a bit of discussion about this on Discord last night (sorry, didn't get back to you before I went to sleep). I'll just quote AKB's statement on it, which most people (staff and users) seemed to generally agree with "I think the key is intention. While it might take some phrasing to express, there's a definite difference between someone showing up and posting a link to a Discord Server begging people to join it, then someone naturally mentioning a Discord Server in discussion. I also think having a separate channel for associated Discord Servers is a good idea." The idea being that if another server comes up in conversation, they should generally be able to link to it. I'll be updating that section.
Bots: What I've been told is that for bots to actually be useful, they have to be added by an admin (if a regular user adds a bot, the bot won't be able to use most of its functions, from what I understand). So a rule about them is not really needed.
Wiki-related discussion: I added a section to the conversation guidelines last night: "Discussions about wiki pages are not binding in any way. It is ok to discuss ideas, formatting, and content on Discord, but if you are looking to make a binding decision, the conversation should be moved to the relevant talk page(s) or the Community Portal."
Privacy & Doxxing: You've got some good suggestions there, Robin, which I'll work on adding today.
Punishments: Right now, what we've got is 1) in-channel nudges/warnings then 2) staff member DMs rulebreaker. If the user responds rudely to the DM or keeps breaking rules, then staff discuss what action to take next. So it is, roughly, a three-strike system, though I plan on defining the list of possible punishments more clearly.
I don't have much to say about roles or etiquette right now, but I'm not ignoring those points either. --FioFioFio (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at how the discussion has evolved over the last day or so, I agree that Fio has the most comprehensive set of rules and those would be a good base to work off of.
As for my previous thoughts about specific etiquette lines, after taking a look, these are the ones I find most important to be readily available to look at on the Discord under a separate Etiquette header.
General Conduct
  • Be patient and courteous. Remember, other editors have lives outside the UESP too, and not everyone speaks English as their first language. We all come from different backgrounds, so try to consider the other person's point of view before jumping to conclusions. Even when someone has been discourteous to you, it doesn't help anything to be rude in return.
  • You don't have to be everybody's best friend, but it's important to be polite.
  • Remember, not everyone knows the site as well as you do. Encourage others to do their own research, but be patient with their questions even when the answer seems obvious to you. After all, the site exists to help Elder Scrolls players.
  • Every member of this site is important to the success of the UESP, regardless of their edit count on the wiki, user rights on any platform, or length of time spent as a member of the community. Each user has the same right to give advice, ask questions, and participate in the community.
Conflict Resolution
  • Avoid personal attacks. Some people are more easily offended than others, but it's always better to avoid saying something that could be hurtful to someone else. Personal attacks include everything from the obvious vandalism and name-calling to ill-intentioned sarcasm. If you can't decide whether something you're about to say counts as a personal attack, it's better not to say it.
  • Who's right and who's wrong is less important than treating others with respect. "But he/she was wrong!" is not an excuse for treating someone poorly.
  • In conflicts or heated debates, keep your cool and slow down. Your input will be considered even if you don't reply right away, and taking a time out is a good way to avoid saying something you might regret later.
  • If you have any serious concerns about the conduct of another user or member of staff, you're encouraged to contact a neutral member of staff or leave a post on the wiki's Administrator's Noticeboard, even if you only wish to do so anonymously.
I've added my own emphasis to a few key points I consider to be of critical importance. The lines shown here are for example purposes and have been copied directly from UESPWiki:Etiquette and reworded to remove wiki-specific lines. If we had two sections similar to these (or even this for that matter) thrown in at the end of the rules as its own subsection, that's the amendment that would make me happy with what we've got.
I feel like it makes absolutely clear, and is in a prominent space what the most important rules of conduct are for the UESP, and it offers advice on how to resolve conflicts with other users or staff, while also taking into account the accountability issue of the AN's Discord thread, by encouraging users to see the advice of another user or speak up if they have concerns about the conduct of another user or a member of the staff. -damon  talkcontribs 16:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Those read likes rules for a wiki or a debate, they don't really fit into a set of rules for a chatroom, or are just straight up repetition of other rules. Almost all of that would just add bulk to that channel, or would just confuse people. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Break 1: Rules[edit]

Well, it was just a suggestion and a draft idea based off of UESPWiki:Etiquette, it can be edited to fit. It doesn't hurt to explicitly remind people of what the key points of the Etiquette page are. Let's be realistic here, most people who read the rules are not likely to click on a link off the site, so Etiquette won't necessarily be read, and based on my experiences with users of the server, having explicitly written out what's expected for interpersonal conduct and communication would be a good thing. Or is that too confusing for you? -damon  talkcontribs 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that I think it's unecessary. Reading the etiquette page most of what's there is already covered in the rules. What isn't covered there I think would make the discord server way too formal for a majority of the users there. In regards to the wiki it is of the utmost importance that tone and interactions remain formal. However, this is a Discord server, it's meant to be light and casual conversation. Having too many rules on what is and isn't good conduct can be a bad thing. I know you mean well, but I think everything that is written as it is now is perfectly fine. However I do agree with you that there needs to be a statement about it being okay to seek out another neutral staff member for any decisions that you disagree with. Other than that I think we're good to go with the rules as they are. JarlUlfric (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
First, I'd like to remind you of the same Etiquette policies you're currently talking about. Asking if your suggestion is too confusing for me to understand could be interpreted as a personal attack, which is grounds for an immediate block. Regardless of your intention, the best way to discuss policy changes in conversations like this is to avoid getting personal at all, talk about the issue, not the people in the conversation. As for your suggestion, it would just add bulk and retreads of the existing rules, or is simply not appropriate for the tone of the server, thus my opposition. Ulf, you have a good point. That seems like a good idea. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think its a little ironic that the bulk of the discussion (in words written) here has come from three people with issues with Discord as it is. I would seriously like to see a lot more of the current users add their thoughts, even if its nothing more than an agreement with the rules proposed, as again ironically, if they do not they will be forced to accept these "binding" rules, and they will not be able to voice displeasure at them in the future and be taken all that seriously. Now is the time to say something and be heard.
Unless there is a snowball effect from users, I also suggest that we not rush this too much, there appear to be some big changes and these need to be the right changes. At least a few more days, I say midnight (west coast USA) on Sunday for implementation if there are no derailments, and I also propose that they be given a week before they become "hard rules" (ie in that week the rules can be tweaked in wording to better suit their use, then only spelling and grammar changes are allowed without talk). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm on board with Fio's draft as it stands, for the most part. The link to the Etiquette page, while not strictly necessary (and it probably won't even be glanced at by 80%+ of users anyway), should be there, but we don't need to regurgitate it onto the Discord. The first two rules, about flaming and hate speech, can actually be rolled into one, like this:
  • No incendiary speech: Slurs and imagery associated with hate groups (ex: Nazi imagery) are forbidden. Other examples will be handled on a case-by-case basis; posting with the intent to insult, incite hate, or start an argument is not allowed. Do not attack other members, whether they are Staff or not.
  • We understand that we have an international community, and what is acceptable varies across cultures. We also understand that people may joke around with their friends in a way that seems insulting to outsiders. However, if you are asked to stop using certain words (or to stop using them in a certain way), respect that and stop immediately.
Fio is actually editing the document as I type this, so that's all I have for now. —likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 02:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the draft. There are some staff members that I'm waiting for input from before moving forward with implementing this, but, so far, it seems that the users currently on the server are satisfied with these rules. --FioFioFio (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm mostly happy with the rules as they stand at the time of writing. I think we perhaps need to clarify who "Dave" or "Daveh" is, since even a lot of regular wiki users don't know, let alone more loosely affiliated Discord users. I'd also like to see the part about contacting Dave clarified as the last resort if a neutral staff member can't be found, rather than as it is now where it sounds like the normal recourse.
Enodoc notes that we need to standardise how long a Proposal vote should last for, so we don't forget about them. I suggested 24 hours for trivial issues and up to 72 hours for more complex ones. This has to be decided on.
Robin Hood said on 17th January, "Tea Party Moderators: If the name is kept, it should probably be explained somewhere where this name comes from. Eventually, if others ask about it, most will know and will explain that it has nothing to do with the US political Tea Party." I absolutely agree with this. To put this into perspective, I joined the UESP Forums in early 2012 and was alarmed by the name then, 6 years ago. The "Mad Hatter's Tea Party" idea was already not the first thing that sprung to my mind. We generally agree that the name should be changed on Discord, firstly to separate them from the TPMs on the Forums, and secondly because we have no tradition of using that name here, but we were struggling slightly to come up with something sensible. "Moderator-in-Training", "Half-Moderator", and "Intern" were the best ideas, with "Cliff Racers" also suggested. Further suggestions would be appreciated. baratron (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

() I suggest renaming Mods (red coloured names) to "Discord Mod" and the Tea Party Mods (pink names) to "Chat Mod". This is because Chat Mods have authority over messages sent and received, but cannot limit user access to channels/the server like Discord Mods can (via bans). This more neutral naming scheme also skirts the more touchy language of "Tea Party" which may be the case to Americans. Thoughts? Contraptions (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The new rules have now been implemented after a vote of 10 support to 2 abstentions (I abstained). The Discord formatting is located at UESPWiki:Discord/Rules and will need to be redone at some stage to make it less ugly and integrate the graphics that are being made. Currently it looks pretty bad but the draft was in Word format which isn't Discord-friendly. —Legoless (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
After giving it a read-over, how about a link to the AN to accompany that line "If you have any serious concerns about the conduct of another user or member of staff, you're encouraged to contact a neutral member of staff or leave a post on the wiki's Administrator's Noticeboard, even if you only wish to do so anonymously."? That way there's quick and convenient access to it so people know how to get there if they ever felt the need to want to be there. Other than that little nitpicking, I think it's a great rewrite of the rules, despite the long discussions it took to get there. I feel like all of my initial grievances have been addressed, so I personally am happy with the way things are going now. -damon  talkcontribs 21:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: Tea Party Moderator role has been re-named to Junior Moderator, after votes from the staff and active users. --FioFioFio (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)