Allow transferring server ownership to discord bot account

Comments

37 comments

  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Why is this getting downvoted?

    1
  • TheSouthernSanta

    Also very hard to use API to make you yourself transfer the Owner role to a bot when Self-Bots are frowned upon. Even some library owners have been putting in stops to letting you use self bots

    0
  • TheSouthernSanta

    I had to read back through a whole bunch of comments just to realise again that a lot of people's points were that bots shouldn't run a server because bots are 'unpredictable', have code bias, are insecure, and they should never be server owner as real people should be server owner.

    You can create a server with a bot, yes. But in other cases where there is already a community, I'm not gonna tell those people to abandon ship and join this new server of mine just because I want Server Co-Owners using a bespoke bot that was designed specifically to run with that server and those Co-Owners in mind.

    I'm in the same camp as Lenny Face, Why is this being downvoted? I feel as if people don't truely understand what it is we have in mind and why it is beneficial. The server would still be monitored by real people, it would just mean that the ability to destroy the server would be locked down by a bot and inaccessable to the Co-Owners unless otherwise voted on. 

    If we can make servers as a bot, why can't we transfer to a bot. I would like this entire theory put to the test. I see no reason why it could go wrong if on the client side of discord, you are only allowed to transfer to bots you created. 

    0
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    I think, something they would need to add, is that deleting a bot in ownership of a server would require you to retype the name of that server or something, as a fail-safe.

    1
  • No. I'm not upvoting this suggestion :

    1. Discord is stupid and they chose not to let bots have absolute power over a server
    2. This will enormously increase the memory and storage of the bot concentrated on a single server.
    3. This will require changing the programming language of the bots, for one stupid suggestion that no one will use given the uselessness apparently, ready the comments
    4. This could make servers undeletable if the bot shut down or go off or no commands works
    5. It could not know who to listen to if lot of users with your role are present

    Please, next time offers something useful that would be useful because we are a community of more than 250 million users. I do not see the neccessity of this one, or anyone who would use it. "I'd like to see a feature which allows us to give our ownership to a bot, so we don't have to create a new server just to have the bot as an owner (Which can often be useful)"

    You only think of yourself - Nothing about how it could be useful and alot
    Oh ! And you gave no argument as to why this suggestion should be added, I read the whole conversation and you only repeated that YOU would like to see this functionality without how it'l be added : /

    -2
  • William08172

    Idk why all you are hating on @riotgrrl Adria. There is no reason to have a bot as owner. You can put them in the highest role with admin, hoist it, whatever and it'll still be fully automated. As for your ridiculously speculative RP nonsense, there is NO way that it could be democratic. Whoever holds the token can do whatever they want, hell since you love speculation so much lets say the code is open source, well what happens when the token holder takes that and makes some modifications before uploading it, the entire failsafe democracy idea crumbles because it's just ridiculously full of holes. You're literally just adding a security vulnerability for a difference that nobody will know, notice, or greatly care about. It's just pointless and that nonsense about only being able to create 10 servers at a time is absurd. Anyone can make a ton of bot applications in the dev panel on new tempmail accounts and then have 1 script, that's right, ONE script run every single one of those on every single account. All this pointless nonsense just so you can say 'Hurr dee durrr lookie here my server is owned by a bOt'. It's pathetic honestly, and so are all the dislikes on the only intelligent comments in this thread, then again it's 2020 and this was made in 2019 where the mob of clowns have the loudest voices over people who actually know what they're talking about. And if you're so worried about RP Communities(obviously based off average intelligence here) then think about what happens when the bot has an error and one of your 'counselors' decides to capitalize on the moment, or what if there's an api or dependencies update that breaks it? It could be weeks before you get it running again all because you pointlessly wanted to 'decentralize' power (even though anyone with the token can do whatever they want regardless of your voting). And stop downvoting comments because you dislike them, you're in denial.

     
    -3
  • TheSouthernSanta

    1. Discord is stupid and they chose not to let bots have absolute power over a server

    Yes, that is what we are arguing.

    2. This will enormously increase the memory and storage of the bot concentrated on a single server.

    How is it any different to a normal bot? We just want to give the bot owner access.. The bots won't change.

    3. This will require changing the programming language of the bots, for one stupid suggestion that no one will use given the uselessness apparently, ready the comments

    It's only going to be a change of programming language for bot developers if library devs don't want to implement this feature into their libraries. As I'm about to point out from the post above, if you have the token, you can just manually send post requests to get the job done if you know how to.

    4. This could make servers undeletable if the bot shut down or go off or no commands works

    And so is the case if someone makes an ordinary user an owner. if the account gets lost and is unaccessable... well, bye bye server. I had to deal with a case like that recently where a system admin needed access to potentially delete a server their company owns, but they only gave roles for the staff and left it. They forgot the credentials and had to comb through all their emails to find out who owned the account. Ordinary users can also cause this denial of server deletion.

    5. It could not know who to listen to if lot of users with your role are present

    That's why you don't allow too many people you don't trust have access to that role which you would code to only work with that role. If you have 50 mods for a server of 100, (an over exaggerated example, but hear me out) clearly if half of the user base is a moderator with access to this bot then clearly there is going to be a security issue. A role should be defined to be used for a certain task. Muting users, moderator, admin, music bot, hidden channels. That's the general use. I'm just using that same principal to determine who has access to this bot and who does not.

    I'm not saying you make a full on bot with all these features and overload your bot capacity. It's literally just for you to share your ownership through the use of a bot

     

    Now to address the other post. I'm sure you read through the whole comment section and my goal isn't to hate on people, it's about giving people my opinion about why this feature should be added. Not once have I personally slandered the opinion of riotgrrl Adria. In fact in my responses, I have been taking everyone's comments seriously and professionally by trying to address all the points given by giving my opinion in return. All I have seen is discussions on both sides as to why people want or don't want this feature. The feature in question that everyone seems to be forgetting is not the ability to use a bot as a server owner since a bot can already create and operate a server as a server owner. We're asking for the ability to give a bot that YOU own the ownership rights to a server that YOU have created.

    First of all, I am going to be critical about this. If a developer is going to be dumb enough to put their Discord bot token in an open source project, then it's going to deserve having the entire server nuked. Nobody in their right mind would want to have their server nuked, which is why even Discord says to protect your bot token. You wouldn't give people your bot token, that's just dumb. The whole point of an open source software is to give people access to a software that has no underlying credentials that they can use to take control of a server or software. It serves no purpose to give people a token which is not theirs to use in the first place.

    As I also mentioned above, even if you have the token, yes you could close down the server, but then what would be the point in all of that. Just think logically about this, not once has a single person who voted to have this implemented said that they wanted to be able to shut down the server from their bot. They have plans to use Discord's permissions system to the fullest. If they wanted to do this already, they would have made a new server with this bot. The whole point of this arguement is to allow a developer who owns a server to allow his own bot to become owner of the server. If a bot is already capable of being a server owner by making a server itself, what is to stop us from just giving the bot server ownership.

    Okay I get both of your concerns in saying we don't have anything to say how we want discord to implement this change... but I have been saying one thing this whole time... make it so only you as a server owner can give the server owner rights to a bot that you have created a bot token for. Only your bot and your bot alone will be allowed to be given server owner... This way you can't have someone who doesn't know what they are doing randomly giving Dyno bot your entire server to never give back.. This is the safeguard I am talking about.

    I'll quote what you said William08172.

    "Anyone can make a ton of bot applications in the dev panel on new tempmail accounts and then have 1 script, that's right, ONE script run every single one of those on every single account."

    Yes, I agree. That is dumb. I wouldn't know why people would go through the trouble to do that. It serves no purpose. All those bots would be created, but nobody's going to invite them to a server. So sorry for the lack of foresight, but I don't see what the problem is with having people who don't know any better, make a huge amount of bot accounts. They're not going anywhere. They wouldn't be able to join without someone specifically inviting that bot. Unless you're talking about people making spam self bots that just let themselves in and do whatever. But that's not what we are talking about. It's about the ability to give your own bot owner permissions in place of you.

    I do agree the amount of dislikes are sad and I will admit I am guilty of some of those downvotes, but let me explain why. I downvoted comments that only talked about why it's bad to have a bot be the owner of a server. But that's not the conversation we are trying to have. We only talked about the projects we would be undergoing should we have this ability to give a bot we own the server owner permissions to a server we own. We were sharing ideas while also trying to justify our use of giving us the ability to make our own bot the owner of our own pre-existing server. Anything that was shitting on our usage of the idea and further saying we have no use for the idea after we just said how we were going to use it is the only justification I had to downvote a comment. You can complain to me if you want for me downvoting, but just don't shit on our ideas for this feature.

    I'm here to have a conversation over the feature itself because I think this little feature could give support to so many different types of communities. I'm here to have a back and forth conversation between those who do and don't think allowing us to give our own bot server ownership to an existing server despite there already being a way for a bot to create a server. Nobody wants to make a new server when they've already made a community.

    Last note I'm going to hit on in this post. API changes and dependency changes. Normal bots are already prone to this. All it means is you will have to migrate to another programming library or wait for the library developer to update their library and make changes to your own bot and get it back up and running. All while the server is perfectly safe protecting people from even having the option of deleting the server during an important time in the continued development of Discord. If you can't close the server, then nobody can. The only person it really affects is the owner of the bot and (presumably) the previous user who owned the server before the bot did.

     

    That's just my take on it. I'm keen to hear other people's feedback on this.

    3

Please sign in to leave a comment.