Allow transferring server ownership to discord bot account

Comments

37 comments

  • SCP gal

    Bots can transfer ownership and delete a server, and do pretty much anything a regular person can, you people are very ill-informed. 

    11
  • SCP gal

    Why is that? People own personal bots themselves, of course, making some random bot in your server the owner is a terrible idea, but since bots can already make servers why not extend their functionality even more to allow them to be server owners, no one would be stupid enough to give someone like Dyno bot ownership of their server, all it takes is to give the user a prompt warning about them transferring ownership to a bot instead of a user and that's all. Bots can already interact with servers in every way, icon, name, roles, channels, regions, permissions, emojis and even delete the server.

    6
  • SCP gal

    If you disagree with my suggestion, for the love of god, at least please provide a valid point why it shouldn't accepted as a suggestion, not topics you probably don't understand about or just throwing in raw opinions like "they shouldn't be allowed to own servers".

    As for @Forgi_Forgeth, please elaborate, as your point is either in the category of "topics you probably don't understand" or you're referring to actual bot security, which should not be an issue considering no major bot developer would risk their permanent reputation going out of their league to mess up a server. And I'm sure that 100% of people who know what they are doing would use their personal bots for managing servers, which aren't 'unpredictable'

    5
  • GrifGrif
    we need to set somethink like you must own the bot for give it ownership : like i own PureBot i can give him the ownership of Purebot system server
    5
  • NinjaKiller

    Being the owner or administrator of a server forces you to view all channels, so I created a server using an alt. This server is ran by a bot I created. They made the rules, and there's an economy.

    Members can buy houses (private text channels) that no one can see but them and my bot, Bean. Allowing Bean to be the owner of the server would be amazing, and would help me so much because it's annoying that my alt is in everyone's houses, and I want Bean to have the crown because he's the ruler. It would look so much better than his fedora.

    4
  • NeuroTypicalCure

    @riotgrrl Adria
    If they can packetsniff bots they can packetsniff you too btw.
    There is already security in place with every message you or a bot sends.

    Now the reason why you would want a bot to own your server would be to have multiple owners, where that bot can allow ownership commands to multiple users, you could even make a voting system to create democracy. Creativity is boundless.

    There are people (me included) that want to create a server managed by a bot, I'd think that a completely automated server would solve some issues with power abuse or with time investment. 

    3
  • TheSouthernSanta

    I just read everyone's messages, now I understand security risks associated with having a bot run a server, but everyone has argued the opposite to everyone's opinions.

    Having a bot manage the server means that you also don't have to have all the permissions.

    Sure it becomes a concern for man in the middle attacks, but that literally happens with any other thing in existence. Even your own discord client.

    The safeguard discord devs could put in place like mentioned above is that only a bot that you own personally can assume ownership. So if you have a friend who owns a bot, unless you're a co-owner of the bot in some regard according to discord, you can't give the bot the server owner role.

    It was said above that all you should do is give everyone an admin or high ranking role, however my counter arguement to that is what if you want all those people to be able to add others to that role. They surely can't add more people if they know that more people will be joining that high ranking role. Discord prohibits anyone but the server owner to assign people to the highest role even if you are that highest role.

    A counter arguement to the above is "Oh well that's dumb, why would you let people use the bot like that, it'll just become a security issue when everyone can assign different roles". Well programming has it's flaws if you literally let everyone use every command. This is why developers have the IDs of roles and users. Each command can be locked down to be used for a specific role on a specific server. It can be secure if you think of the general use case and know who you don't want using said commands. Simple IF statements.

    My use case is we have a server for our organisation, we communicate with our backing members, however because most of our core team have admin, we have control over most of the server. However it doesn't mean we have control over who has our role. We have new people join our team every so often and we have to wait for our friend in another timezone to login and add them to our role. I want to be able to offload that stress and burden from them. It's not overly a big deal for them, it just feels like it makes more sense to have equal control over the server including adding to our own role.

    And yes, like @NinjaKiller, i'd rather restrict our access to channels we're not meant to see if we are to have private channels that only certain users can see without sacrificing on permissions or access to move people to the highest role. eg: non admin highest role with permissions to modify etc. with bot perms to move new team members to highest role on command.

    The only abuse that can happen is things you let happen with the bot. Keep it secure and simple and there should be no problems. A program can only be as bad as it's creator.

    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
  • Monkikey

    Hello everybody.
    When i saw this topic i directly think i could give reason to @Aquatic.

    I am programming a full admin-bot who will be able to manage EVERYthings, without any exceptions, on my server.

    One of his commands have to be able to destroy a server.

    I don't know why my bot, because his task is to act as a Owner, couldn't BECOME the Owner of my server.

    Guys it's really something you must add for Discordjs, please.

    2
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    @riotgrrl Adria, oh yeah and bots can only make 10 servers at a time anyway so that thing about DDOSing is also stupid. One last thing, bots can only send 10 requests per 30 second interval, meaning any DDOS attack would not work, how about YOU go back to college?

    2
  • NeuroTypicalCure

    In response to Adria's last reply, 

    Bot design can be open sourced, so it can be made neutral in the sense that it's transparent.
    Democracy doesn't mean a thing if the owner can just delete the server whenever he wants.

    I've been in some servers that were closed when the community didn't really want it to be closed, this deleting their entire history that they've had with all the members. Discord's export options don't keep conversations intact (only your data is kept but not the people you were talking to).

    Anyhow coding a bot that lets more than one person vote on server deletion. Prevents a frustrated owner from nuking what a lot of people hold dear and have put a lot of time into.
    Not saying this happens a lot, but it happens and it could happen to you.

    You would need to lock every one out of accessing the api key, because otherwise you could host another version of the bot
    So having the key accessible from an endpoint which you can only access when a vote is passed or something

    There isn't any bigger security issue than just having a user. Unless the bot is terrible. But you know, humans are more terrible, because you can't easily fix those.

    To lennie face guy: 
    The bot should be able to change your roles if he has the required permissions, either you change those from the invite link where you made the special bot account or you give him a bot role that has admin permission.

    2
  • Airbus A330-200

    You can't transfer ownership to a bot as far as I know, but you can have a bot create its own server.  This only works if your application is a user account or your bot account is in 10 servers or less.  I had my bot create its own server and it works.  I don't see any security flaws besides the fact that it might be hard to manage your server as you do not own it.  Look at the documentation for your language.  For Discord.js its pretty clear on how to do it.

    2
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    @NinjaKiller that sounds awesome, I see why you wouldn't want to be in everyone's "houses" because that kinda ruins the idea of it being private. I own a small community that has separate categories for most popular multiplayer games, and being the owner means that I have to scroll through *all* of these categories, even if I don't like the game they are for!

    2
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    @SuperGDPro3
    We know that, it has been mentioned multiple times here. If you read the post properly, you would know that we want to *transfer* ownership, not create a new server.

    2
  • Spud

    Ok, here's my question - what would be the point in letting a bot own my server? What would it do for me? How would this feature make my discord experience better?

    1
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    FFS, all I want is to be able to make my personally controlled bot the owner of an automated server. Also @riotgrrl Adria yes, we understand making a bot that you don't control the owner of a server is a security flaw, but this would be a bot that I control. Oh yeah and like @NeuroTypicalCure said, if you could packet-sniff a bot, you could packet-sniff a user, so your point is invalid.

    1
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Why is this getting downvoted?

    1
  • ( ͡° ͜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
  • Dominus_Marceau

    How ?

    0
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    @spudpotato you could automate all systems and also manage all users of the server, I have a big issue with testing because the bot cant change my roles etc.

    0
  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Oh ok.

    0
  • 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
  • username
    Why? What is the point of transferring ownership to a Bot account?
    -2
  • riotgrrl Adria

    All's I'm hearing is that I'm creating a bot to run a server will all powers.
    But why?

    That's not a reason.
    Seriously go back to college or take a course on defensive programming.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming

    -2
  • Soheab_

    This is already possible lol but it’s really useless!

    -2
  • 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
  • Spud
    Why would anyone want to do this. There's no way a bot can fully manage a server.
    -3
  • riotgrrl Adria

    Traditionally, scripts are run to do the same thing with creating new instances of virtual environments. That script is run locally on the machine, which prevents having an outside force from trying to modify the script. If the virtual environment were to be taken down, one can easily create a new instance and not expose the machine behind it.
    If you are the owner of one of the virtual environments, you want to try and protect it by backing it up. You can't do that with a discord server. You can easily lose your servers.

    On discord's end, one can also use your bot to create a massive amount of servers to suck up bandwidth; an effective DDOS attack.

    -3

Please sign in to leave a comment.