Get rid of the four digit tag numbers at the end of usernames


354 comentarios

  • m o l a n g

    > I don't want another impersonator with same username with just different numbers.

    Listen, the tags exist so that people who aren't so fortunate with their usernames can still have the one they want. There is no "This username is taken!" issue with discord, and that's what I - and many people people - love about it! You know what they say...

    If you don't like it, leave <3


    > Just give us a unique username. 

    That is what the tags allow you to do! If someone already took your ideal user before, you can still use it! It's more annoying in my opinion to see "casxx44754958" because the user might be taken.


    As others have said, if you don't want the string, just get Nitro and change it to something simple!

  • Eternity by the Unrivaled Blade

    Spent an hour reading this and considering each person's point of view to see which side I wanna take.

    Still don't know, but it was fun! I hope this still continues lol. I'm going to bookmark this and come back in a year or so to see how you all are doing. 


    (No disrespect to you guys at all btw, I just found this whole thing very amusing. Personally, I don't care about my username. I change it like every three days, so people can never remember me anyway.)

  • kerp1unk

    i have absolutely no idea what i just read,,, how can someone be that stubborn? your username is username#0000 and all you see is the username part everywhere. the tag part is only so that people can add you and it's only on your profile. this is bizarre- like you don't need the definition of a username to understand how this works. its been clearly stated multiple times and it's how discord is??

  • Panda

    That was the single stupidest argument I've ever read, get a grip a remember a couple numbers. It's not hard just to check your phone to see what the numbers are if you're adding someone if it really is that hard to remember.

  • Doc

    I seriously don't get why it's so hard to remember four digits like you would a street number or your phone number lmao. This is such a petty reason to not use Discord, because literally the more you use it and look at your username, the better you'll get at remembering the tag. I'd say to get it on mobile so you can just access the tag right there when giving your name to people, or have it in your notes app or something, but that's apparently too much effort.

    To be completely honest with you, it did bug me a bit as well when I first joined, but simply ignoring it and interacting with servers and users that I like made me completely forget I was ever mad about it. Once people have you added they're not even concerned with your tag anymore anyway, and no one gets a say in it. Even nitro users who change it get another randomly assigned one once their subscription ends, so don't act like four numbers added to your name is the end of the world. Everyone treats your tag as separated from your name, trust me.

  • Creatør

    This thread was so depressing

  • BKinney

    I agree with some of the OP's points: the ideal system for users would be one where the 4-digit ID, if it exists, can always be changed, and defaults to something easy to remember (like 0000 or 0001 if you're the first person with that username), and maybe where people can search for other Discord users by username so even if you don't remember your ID, other people can find you by your profile picture (guessing it or having you tell them).

    The main potential downside to letting people change their tags for free is that Discord costs money to run, and restricting this feature to Nitro gives people one more reason to pay for Nitro instead of just enjoying Discord for free (and the same for not resetting the 4-digit ID once Nitro expires).

    As for whether to use the Discord system or the Twitter/Instagram system, there are benefits and downsides to both.

    With the Discord system, most of the time you can go by exactly the name you want to be, without having to worry about someone else in the world having that name (unless you're both in the same server). You only have to worry about your 4-digit ID when you're adding someone as a friend who isn't in one of your servers, or when you're checking to make sure someone isn't an impersonator.

    But on the other hand, some people might have trouble remembering their 4-digit ID (even if they could choose it themselves), and even if you remember your own, other people might not remember theirs, and in some cases they might not have easy access to it (such as if they left Discord off their phones due to limited data plans or storage space, not wanting distractions/notifications on that phone, or having limits from their parents if they're young enough for that to have an effect).

    Even if the Twitter/Instagram system is the best overall, the Discord system is so ingrained in the technology that it would be difficult to change it (based on what I've read in this thread), and so it wouldn't make sense to put in the effort to change to a new system unless the majority of users wanted the change, and wanted it enough to make it more important than the other things the Discord employees were thinking of improving instead.

    (Another effect of Discord's system, and to not allowing people to search by username, is that people from outside Discord can't track you down without already knowing your 4-digit ID. This is helpful in cases where someone sees your username on another service and wants to contact you for malicious/harassing purposes, and cases where you know about them already and don't want them to contact you.)

  • Aro The Chunibyo Neko

    >Why can it work on twitter, but not discord?

    If you love Twitter's system so much, then why don't you use twitter? Honestly, I don't understand like if Discord adding four random numbers is such a big deal to you to the point that you refuse anyone's suggestions(write the numbers down, figured out a way to memorize them, etc.) and like a child.. Like it's just so confusing to me. and it's embarrassing really, just don't use discord if it bothers you so much

  • Eagle52

    I don't get why its so complicated to understand. You can just add friends on Twitter or something and then message them your discord later, when your looking at it. There, problem solved, no need to remember it.

  • sabinbro

    Hi. First and foremost, apologies for the ping for those who are done with this thread. I wanted to combine a few thoughts and add another perspective that I don't think has been addressed properly and which I think is ACTUALLY the point of the system. I do tend to ramble a bit, and yes I have already condensed this message to less than half of its original length. You can skip to the bottom then read up if interested.

    As sterd mentioned, your "actual" username (as poochyena defined it) is your email address; this is the unique identifier that you use to log in. Everything else is basically affectation. As another person mentioned (sorry, I couldn't find your comment), the "username" that we use (in my case, Sabin or even Sabin#3704) serves nicely as a buffer between our private email address and our public-facing persona; I would much rather give people a name+tag than my personal and private email address. And what if I decided to make my username "

    Here's the part I want to add: My online identity is Sabin. Not Sabin#3704, not Sabin12345, etc. The discriminator (digits after the #) actually serve two purposes: first to differentiate different people who call themselves Sabin, and second to show non-preference by making that discriminator random. Part of the reason this works is because it is commonly understood and accepted that "the extra part that Discord assigns you" is just that: it's extra and separate.

    I adopted the name Sabin more than 20 years ago, before the professional wrestler named Chris added it to his name and probably before most of the other Sabins of the world were even born (ok boomer). However, I was not the first Sabin to register for most of the social platforms or websites I have used over the years. I am effectively being punished for not being lucky enough (or an early enough adopter) to claim the name first. On Discord, Sabin#3704 is just as valid as Sabin#2201 or Sabin#0001 with no preference shown to "who was here first".

    To borrow the metaphor of using first and last names, I would like to adapt it a bit. You and I have several mutual friends all named Dave. We start chatting, and I say "Hey, you remember that one time Dave drove into a lake?" You never heard that story, so you don't know which Dave I'm talking about. You ask me, "Which Dave is this?" I might answer "the accountant" or "the gym rat" or "the one with the cyan hair". None of these answers are part of Dave's name, and it would be a stretch to say they are part of his identity. But they are discriminators: ways to specify that I'm referring to THAT Dave instead of the OTHER Dave. The fact that Dave is a beefy blue bean-counter does not make him any less of "Dave", but one could think of these as "tags" that help us know which Dave we're talking about.

    One final point about "display names". Some servers do not allow you to change your nick (usually to prevent meming and abuse). On those servers, and also in DMs (as others have mentioned), I am still Sabin without the need for arcane variations on my name that don't resonate with me. I am Sabin. End of story. If there happens to be more than one Sabin, then I'll be the one with #3704 after it. That does not mean that I am Sabin#3704, just like Dave isn't going to be beefy blue bean-counter Dave unless that level of specificity is needed in context.

    There is yet another benefit to forcing the discriminator, and it's the same benefit as having unique Twitter usernames: preventing others from simply browsing similar people to try and find you. Moreover, it prevents me from showing up in other people's browsing. This is an important privacy issue, and one of the reasons I am critical of Facebook's search features (yes, they have privacy options, but most people find them too cumbersome or arcane to use properly, especially when the default position should be opt-in rather than their current model of opt-out). I wouldn't want random people sending me messages to see if I am the Sabin they know, nor would I want my friends sending messages to random other Sabins to figure out which one is me.

    CONCLUSION: I will happily admit that the four-digit discriminator solution might not be the most ideal for all applications. For this platform and the countless communities it hosts, I think it works very well and that removing the discriminator and/or forcing most of us to adopt more arcane names would be a terrible idea even before the technical challenges are considered.

  • MarSprite

    At least for me, I'm not confused about why they have a discriminator, and I don't want it to go away.

    I'm not really interested in playing semantics with Username, login, display name, etc.

    The public facing identity, which is used to find you -> The only reason the "discriminator" portion of this is required to be random is as bait to entice users into paying for the "privilege" of deciding it.

    Actually, if this lowkey blackmail didn't exist, I would be a nitro subscriber. If the discriminator was fixed and unchangeable, I would be a nitro subscriber. If the discriminator was something you could have changed without forevermore paying a fee, I would be a nitro subscriber. The features that nitro provides are neat, and it's much cheaper than the other services I regularly pay for and use. Seriously, Animated Emotes, enough said.

    For those saying "just don't use discord if you don't like it"...

    That just some of the most ridiculous reasoning I have heard. Discord has become the behemoth in voip communication and they don't even do phone service. If you don't do Discord, you are denying interaction with a gigantic portion of the people who socialize vocally on the internet.

    Further, I can dislike something about something, while still liking the whole. The idea of throwing something out because it has a minor defect is incredibly entitled thinking. I don't look at a T-Shirt with a loose thread and go "guess I'll throw it away." I cut that loose thread and move on. I don't go, "the character in this game has a stupid hairstyle! I'm getting a refund!" or "My car has a low air in the front right tire, time for a new car!"

    Be as ridiculous as you like, but just know that it undermines you, unless being perceived as a fool was your goal all along.

    As for "add them on (other service), then add them later when you are both on." I'm not going to. That's an unnecessary hurdle to make someone else jump through. Further, what if I don't have their (other service), or they don't have mine? Certainly, I do not have Twitter, because that scene is hot garbage. Why wouldn't you just keep a note of your number if it's too much to remember? Just because I dislike the mechanism doesn't mean I can't make use of it. Anyone who can't come up with their own way to make use of it probably can't speak coherently either, so what's the point.

    I'm simply going to retain their automatically assigned number, never pay them for nitro, and complain about the mechanism when I have a good opportunity to do so.

  • gacha

    did he ever memorize the four numbers?

  • ScaronX

    I want to start a poochyena server channel.  Add em all in.  The guy will never get it.  Ive never had an issue with the #1111 at the end of mine lol.  Its not something I ever see and if I am handing out friend requests and what not - its not hard to deal with either.  Ive been a part of discord since 2017 and it has never once bothered me that I had additional numbers on the back side of my name that no one else will really see.  Frankly seeing ScaronX instead of ScaronX1111 is a lot better.  Just means that there was at least 1110 other peeps with the same name before me.  It would be the equivalent of changing the entire world to the American Standard vs the metric system.  Aint gunna werk.

  • MarSprite

    Four things:

    poochyena moved on from this topic a long time ago.

    The numbers are not assigned sequentially, you may be the first person on discord with that name.

    Why is it that you think you have any idea what it's like to get a random number when your number is all 1s? That's ridiculous, all you have to remember is that it's 1s. 0000,1111,2222,3333,4444,5555,6666,7777,8888,9999 : People who were automatically assigned these discriminators don't have a place in this conversation. Speak on if you like, but you're oblivious if you think you have a similar experience to other discord users on this issue.

    America SHOULD change to the metric system, and it seems to be happening very gradually. Metric is objectively better. I say this as an American. It will work, it's just going to take a while. Also, that's a very bad corollary to something as changeable as Discords identification system, which could be altered with merely some software edits.

  • ScaronX

    I figured that.  Kinda wrote that late at night and was half awake.  The metric system should be the standard.  Not oblivious.  I do have similar experiences with certain topics.  That does not make me oblivious in any way shape or form.  Also its not bad corollary.  Trying to change a core number in any given system is difficult to do.  Especially if it is a well established system that affects over 150 mill accounts.  Im not going to have this discussion with you.  Have a nice day.

  • MarSprite

    "I'm not going to have this discussion with you" what a ridiculous thing to say as the final sentence in a paragraph that is exactly the discussion in question. Do you think you get the last word because you say so? Do you think that telling me you won't talk to me makes your opinion true in my eyes? Do you think you have some sort of control over whether or not I respond to you?

    If you "weren't having this discussion" you wouldn't have said anything else. By talking about it, you're discussing it, that's how that works. You just make yourself look impotent and infantile by mimicking your guardians speech patterns for ending an argument they were losing.

    Changing from imperial to metric requires changing the minds of billions of people, and you evidently don't even know how to change 1. Meanwhile, changing the account system for a piece of regularly updated software is as simple as making a patch and pushing it out. I'm oversimplifying a bit, but I code stuff every day. It's not even in the same weight class as changing billions of individual minds.

    They aren't going to change it because it's profitable, but that they could change it is not even in question.

  • sabinbro

    MarSprite: I was probably add to ScaronX's comment that you being stubborn and irrational is a good enough reason to terminate the conversation (my opinion, not necessarily theirs). But I didn't come here to take up someone else's argument, but to speak my own opinion.

    The metric system is good, and probably better for most applications than the imperial system. That doesn't mean it's objectively the best system and all other measures ought to be destroyed and only metric remains.

    I draw this corollary back to the actual topic at hand: Discord. Different services use different paradigms for their username systems. The more successful ones choose a system that meets the needs of its users. For Facebook, your UserID is a string of numbers. You can have a custom URL that they call "username", but it's really just a vanity mask for the UserID. You log in with your email address or phone number. One might ask how you can remember your phone number made of 10 (or more) essentially meaningless digits but not your Discord discriminator of four meaningless digits; I use Discord more often than my phone, but your mileage (meterage?) may vary. 

    If Discord were to push out a patch that completely removed discriminators and forced everyone to choose a unique username, I would most likely comply but I would not be interested in using Discord except when I really have to. It would be dead as a social or community platform, in much the same way as Facebook and Twitter are dead to me (I know that they are still alive and wildly popular, but I do not care for them). I've made this point before at belaboring length, but I will make it briefly here: one of the main reasons I continue to use Discord as my primary social platform is because I can be Sabin without competing with other people who also call themselves Sabin (or worse, with people who snipe the name and forever lock out others who would want to use it). I don't mind the discriminator because I literally never need it unless someone is adding me as a friend, and even then only if we do not share any mutual servers. And none of those people have to worry about my discriminator at all after that point unless they click for my profile; even then, the discriminator is visually distinct from my name (it is dim and not bold, whereas my name is brighter and bolder).

    My guess is that if Discord were to do what you suggest and force people to use names they don't like for the sake of uniqueness, the platform will shrivel and another will take its place, probably one that uses a similar system to this one that you don't like. Why? Because much like the metric system, the new and current discriminator system is superior to the proposed change back to the old, outdated, and obsolete system of forcing people to use names they don't like.

    Removing the discriminator is a step backwards that would undo progress. Don't be the one to stand in the way of progress because you just like the old system better.

  • MarSprite

    So... basically you have no idea what I've said in this thread, because I have never, not even once, suggested that they should do away with the discriminator.

    So I'll say it again, what I would LIKE is for the discriminator to be something you can select on account creation, or once following account creation, or even just NOT randomize when you have changed it with nitro and your subscription lapses.

    The last time I stated explicitly my opinion on the discriminator, I said: "At least for me, I'm not confused about why they have a discriminator, and I don't want it to go away." and in the same post: "The public facing identity, which is used to find you -> The only reason the 'discriminator' portion of this is required to be random is as bait to entice users into paying for the 'privilege' of deciding it."

    And so it follows, I do not want the discriminator gone, and I do not expect them to change the system by which discriminators are selected because for the most part it makes them more money.

    So, aside from misrepresenting me, and claiming that I am "standing in the way of progress" as if progress was something inherently good, do you have anything meaningful to talk about?

  • sabinbro

    Apparently not, and it seems that we have this in common. You may be correct that I made the mistake of assuming that you were against the discriminators because 1. that's what this thread is about, 2. you claimed it should be easy to do, and 3. you're arguing against people who support discriminators. You are not correct that the discriminator exists solely as a revenue stream, despite it having auxiliary utility in this way. You are also not correct that a change in this system would be a "simple patch" that they could push out in short order. I do find it strange that you came here to argue with people you claim to agree with (at least in principle), but that's something for you to figure out, not me. Take care.

  • MarSprite


    So, because you post in a thread that you agree with an element of something that someone said, it can be assumed then that you agree with their entire premise? That's pretty obviously wrong.

    Is strawman all you know how to do? I told ScaronX that making a change to the discord discriminator would be easy relative to making everyone in America switch to using the metric system.

    I explicitly stated that I was oversimplifying the patch process in my description, but I didn't call it in itself an easy task. I get paid good money to code and there is a reason for that.

    I'm not arguing against their support of discriminators, I'm arguing against the particular qualities of the implementation that make it detestable to those such as myself and I would guess the OP as well.

    At no point did I argue that the discriminator solely served as a revenue stream. I will argue that the discriminator being randomized is entirely due to it's use as a revenue stream.

    So basically, it seems you still have no idea what is I have said in this thread. Do you read? I have done you the courtesy of reading your posts before assuming I know where you are coming from, do you not know how to do the same?

    It's kind of pointless for us to communicate if the only way you know how is to set up straw man arguments and tear them down.

    You say "I do find it strange that you came here to argue with people you claim to agree with (at least in principle)" Is the world so left and right to you? Do you believe that you can only disagree with someone if you disagree with them on everything, and if you agree with them, then you must agree with them on everything? I do not see the world that way.

    In practice, I believe that a discriminator should exist, and I do not believe that the discriminator should be random. How is that difficult for you to understand?

  • sabinbro

    MarSprite: I already accepted responsibility for not fully reading, and have since corrected my error. Perhaps you should look up "straw man logical fallacy" before trying to apply it incorrectly. That said, I will not address those baseless accusations further. Instead, I will move forward to your specific complaint as outlined in the final sentence of your more recent post:

    In practice, I believe that a discriminator should exist, and I do not believe that the discriminator should be random.

    I do understand you may not have read my initial post (a few weeks ago now) regarding why randomized discriminators are actually pretty awesome. The tl;dr is that PRNs do not show preference based on who signs up first. To use myself as an example, I am Sabin. I'm very likely not the only Sabin who uses the platform. With sequential or chosen discriminators, there would be a clear "hierarchy" of Sabins, as anyone without the lowest or coolest discriminator would become a second-class Sabin. This carries an implication that I'm somehow not a legitimate Sabin because I joined too late, making me some sort of "impostor Sabin". Consider the parallels of using other services, where I might have to be Sabin12 because someone else already got Sabin (and likely the lower numbers as well). I'm not the "real Sabin", I'm just Sabin12. By using PRNs, this entire problem is eliminated and all Sabins are on equal footing, regardless of when they joined Discord. This is not subverted by Nitro purchases, because it is commonly understood that custom discriminators are affectations of vanity, not a representation of legitimacy. While you might personally find no value in this benefit, I can assure you that it's a very common sentiment even among users who haven't thought about it as much as we have.

    It may be true that Sabin isn't a terribly common name, but consider the other communities full of people who take names from popular video games, anime, pop culture, or common words. How many people named Sephiroth, Goku, Bieber, or King might value the fact that they are the only members of their insular community who use their particular name (even though it might be commonly-used across the platform as a whole)? Why should I have to appear as Sabin#0012 to my friends who only know one guy named Sabin: me? The default use of PRNs as discriminators eliminates this problem from even being part of the conversation.

    For one final point about Nitro: there is an important difference between "A therefore B" and "B therefore A". Being able to choose a different discriminator is a benefit of Nitro, but that does not imply the inverse (e.g. that non-customizable discriminators exist to drive Nitro sales).

    Edit: missed a closing parenthesis.

  • MarSprite

    I don't need to review basic debate terminology, but I'll explain that I understand a strawman argument to be: misrepresenting anothers words so that you may make an argument against that misrepresentation.

    You said, in the previous post: "you claimed it should be easy to do" which is a misrepresentation of my argument, called a strawman. You also said "You are also not correct that a change in this system would be a "simple patch" that they could push out in short order" which is an an attack on that strawman or simply called an argument. Which is why I say it is a strawman argument.

    I have read this entire thread before EVER posting on it, and I have read every subsequent post, including yours.

    As for your assertion that someone with a less desirable discriminator will be lower class, you aren't wrong. The problem is that currently that is a matter of luck, unless you pay discord. It not that there are no desirable discriminators, it only that you may not choose to have them without continuous payments for nitro. You still may have a superior discriminator, as with ScaronX's claimed discriminator of #1111. What exactly constitutes "lower class" is subjective, but I think it should be apparent that were Person#3478 and Person#1111 to be names provided to you, #1111 would be more memorable, and even perhaps elicit a "oh wow, your discriminator is all one number?!" If we accept that a person with a more desirable identifier is seen as a "vanity" it does not mean that it is not a symbol of class. In fact, most vanity is exactly a symbol of class in all walks of life. Gucci, Apple, Calven Klein, Porche, Rolex, etc. these are examples of vanity choices to denote financial superiority.

    It seems like after this point, you are again trying to argue that discriminators are valuable, which is still something we agree on, and you've acknowledged that you know we agree on it, so I'm not sure why you're beating that dead horse.

    On your final point "there is an important difference between 'A therefore B' and 'B therefore A' Being able to choose a different discriminator is a benefit of Nitro, but that does not imply the inverse (e.g. that non-customizable discriminators exist to drive Nitro sales)" I don't disagree. This is another potential strawman. The implication is that I am arguing your eg, and in fact I said "I will argue that the discriminator being randomized is entirely due to it's use as a revenue stream." I call this potential, because I'm not sure you mean to misrepresent me here, the distinction is subtle. I'm not making a causal claim that it exists to create a revenue stream, I'm arguing that it hasn't changed so that a revenue stream may be maintained. Though, it is possible that what you believed I said is the case, I wouldn't argue it because I see plausible alternative explanations.

    As a company with a product, Discord Inc. has a clear motive for their product to be as attractive as possible to as many people as possible, so that they can move as much product as possible. Customization of the discriminator, being an enhancement for their product, that they have already designed and implemented for nitro subscribers, there is no clear reason aside from profit for which they would not offer that to all users. I don't claim to have hard evidence that PROVES them to have this motive. (such as media in which they claim that) I do argue that that IS their motive though. Further, because it takes extra code for it to randomize when the nitro subscription ends, and even more code so that it changes only if it has been changed during the subscription, it can be seen that this is a deliberate action.

    So then I know you may follow this with a variation of your claim that it is about the 'legitimacy' of a given user. If that was truly their motive, then they would not be able to offer nitro at all, which offers a variety of methods for trying to show other users that the nitro user is better. They have animated emotes, customizable discriminators, and server boosts. Server boosts being the most egregious offender in this regard, as it actually makes them more valuable to have in your community if you run a server. I don't personally have a problem with this sort of classism, but it is an effect of the service.

  • sabinbro

    There is a qualitative difference between misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I've already owned up to misunderstanding, and I won't apologize twice.

    Fundamentally altering the system of naming users would not be a simple matter. You said, "Meanwhile, changing the account system for a piece of regularly updated software is as simple as making a patch and pushing it out." While you do admit to oversimplification, your casual hedging creates a dissonance between your dismissiveness and the complexity of the thing you so readily dismiss.

    My claim is not to the value of discriminators, but to the value of having PRNs as discriminators. Its value comes from having over 99% of active users (according to a recent Forbes estimate) being in the PRN system. The estimated 0.7% of active users who have Nitro are the outliers, not the control group. All of the specialness that comes from getting a custom discriminator relates to financial status, NOT to legitimacy of name usage. Simply put, if someone pays to be Sabin#0000, that just means that the person behind the screen chose to pay for Nitro and they chose to get that number. It does not take anything away from anyone else named Sabin.

    However, if choosing discriminators became the default, snipers' and squatters' rights would again be the culture de jure and all of the benefits of PRN discriminators would be lost. Accidentally or intentionally, using PRNs for discriminators was one of the more brilliant innovations Discord introduced.

    Finally, I would suggest that custom numbering is unlikely to be the reason most people pay for Nitro. Bigger uploads, higher bandwidth, and boosting servers are the main reasons most subscribers choose to pay; custom numbers is at-best a fringe benefit. It would be like paying for a top-end gym membership because you like their lavatory (no straw man or slippery slope intended here, just a metaphor for the silliness).

    It is important that the vast majority of users do not have custom discriminators. As soon as people are allowed to choose en masse, then I might as well just be Sabin12 because I'll never get to be just Sabin anymore. The numbers will no longer be arbitrary, but will become a real part of the username in all of the ways that poochyena opposed. I contend that this would be a bad thing, and I think I've made a strong case for that position.

  • MarSprite

    "As another person mentioned (sorry, I couldn't find your comment), the "username" that we use (in my case, Sabin or even Sabin#3704) serves nicely as a buffer between our private email address and our public-facing persona" and "First and foremost, apologies for the ping for those who are done with this thread." are both excellent examples of apologies, and also they are the only apologies you have made in this thread.

    As a point of interest, that comment you "couldn't find"? That was my comment. It's on page 6 for me(page number in url), use ctrl+f and my name to find it, if you want to. It was my first post in this thread. You couldn't even find my post to review and you managed to avoid misrepresenting me that time.

    Misrepresentation, and misunderstanding are functionally the same thing when you are quoting someone else as a paraphrase. Saying that you know you have done something, then continuing to do it... that's not an apology, that's a taunt.

    I reviewed your posts, because I am not infallible. In review, you haven't apologized to me, aside from for being unable to identify that you were referencing me. The words 'sorry' and 'apologies' are both clearly in your lexicon, but you have not directed them at me around this issue, in this thread. Nor have you stopped misrepresenting my statements, though you did acknowledge doing so, once. In closing for the same post you said that you found the particular statements, that you had acknowledged misrepresenting, contrary to my behavior. If the words sorry, apologies, or apologize had been included, it would have been a backhanded apology at best. They weren't though, and it reads contextually as a sarcastic taunt, but I'll acknowledge that you haven't misrepresented me on that point subsequently. It is not the only way that you have misrepresented my words though.

    You misrepresent my words again in your post now, by removing my words from context, that were in context: "Changing from imperial to metric requires changing the minds of billions of people[.] Meanwhile, changing the account system for a piece of regularly updated software is as simple as making a patch and pushing it out." I stand by the FACT that changing the software is simple relative to changing the minds of billions of people, and that would still be the case even if you had to reverse engineer the software or write it from scratch, which would not be necessary in this case.

    Your argument about where the value of a personalized name comes from is subjective, and also irrelevant to the fact that it HAS value, and IS a status symbol, and more importantly IS a part of your identity. Which doesn't seem to be a concept you disagree with, please tell me if you do.

    I choose not to view your Forbes article, because they choose not to allow me to view their site with ads blocked. That doesn't seem to make any difference though, as you seem to be quoting it as proof that most users don't have nitro, which does not conflict with anything that I've said. I do not agree with you that having people choose discriminators would result in the outcomes you propose, and while it's not scientific proof, I point to the way uses discriminators as an example of discriminators being being user customizable, without creating a massive discriminated name scalping industry or 'illegitimate' users.

    I do not contest the assertion that "custom numbering is unlikely to be the reason most people pay for Nitro." Though, I do know people personally for whom it is the reason. In point of fact, I explicitly listed out a few of these alternative reasons as examples of how nitro is made a status symbol by Discord. I don't have a problem with them seeking to make money from services. My problem with Discord is very limited in scope, that scope being the randomization of the discriminator post nitro. (Also an annoying bug where voice stops transmitting randomly until you leave and return to a voice channel, though I haven't experienced that recently so it may have been squashed.) Actually, if it was only though selling identity that they managed to make sales, I would find it less offensive.

    I agree that "It is important that the vast majority of users do not have custom discriminators." I just see it as negative where you see it as a positive. I think this point is subjective, and that we view it differently because we have differing personal values. I'm not expecting to convince you, but I find it even more inconceivable that you might convince me.

    On an aside, I'm not certain what you mean by acronym PRN, but I am reading it to be 'personalized name'. Please inform me if that is a significant misinterpretation.

    I also want to say that I don't consider Forbes to be an authoritative source of information, though that doesn't seem to be an issue we need to hash out.

  • sabinbro

    MarSprite I'm sorry if I have misrepresented and/or misunderstood what you have said and/or failed to perform due diligence to find the author of a particular comment. I mistakenly believe(d) that, in each case, the oversight(s) were either trivial or nonexistent. That is an apology directed to you.

    I do have the ability to learn and correct errors. You are correct (at least, I hope) that I have stopped misrepresenting you on matters for which I have been corrected. The only thing I can say in my defense is that my responses to those points (as I understood them at the time) were to address the points, not the person. There was never any intention from me to make personal attacks or to conflate the validity of a point with the validity of a person.

    You are correct to claim that pushing a sweeping software patch would be simpler than changing the minds of billions of people. Indeed, I would contend that restarting all of society from humanoids' first wordlike utterances would be easier than changing the minds of billions of people. Unless it's on TMZ, but that's unlikely in this case.

    I understand not viewing the Forbes article, and in a similar situation I probably would've acted similarly. I'm not asking anyone to stipulate that the figures I quoted are perfectly accurate and precise, only that they were quoted from a relatively-neutral published source (i.e. not made-up and not from someone who has a dog in the proverbial fight) and therefore has some modicum of veracity beyond that of pure supposition or conjecture. I specifically chose not to link the Forbes article because I felt that it was understood to mean "this is what Forbes says", not authoritative. However, if the figures I quoted are at issue, I invite you to provide other figures backed by a more authoritative source if you feel that it would add to the discussion. Personally, I suspect that such figures, if presented, are unlikely to upend the point they were presented to make.

    I do not argue that discriminators have value. I argue that their value is marginal, and that people for whom they have value may choose to customize them. I further argue that the marginality of that value is such that the choice to purchase a custom discriminator does not impact upon the value (or lack thereof) of discriminators for other users in the same way that it would if it were attached part and parcel to the rest of the username, or if discriminators were sequential, or any other random or PRN scheme.

    PRN means Pseudo-Random Number (PRNG is +Generator). Computers are not capable of generating truly random numbers -- the result is always deterministic given one or more particular input "seeds". Quantum computers might be capable of truly random behavior, but that has yet to be discovered.

    Specific to the battle-net discriminator system, I plead ignorance on how they are assigned as I do not have an account with them. A (very) cursory Google search did not yield any information about custom discriminators on that service; in fact, my search brought up THIS thread about halfway down Page One. I do not claim that this information doesn't exist, only that it is obscure at best. I would appreciate illumination if you think it would be helpful.

    If your only objection to randomized discriminators is the way that Discord handles post-Nitro reassignment, then I can't say that I fundamentally disagree with you. Though, I might suggest that it is a very different issue than the OP, which argues that random discriminators should not exist. Note: I'm not saying this is your statement, only addressing the predicate of the leading IF statement.

    I do not claim that customized discriminators would necessarily create a massive discriminated name scalping industry, and that result is borne out by current observations. I am old enough to remember when the AOL (or, America Online as it was known at the time) dial-up service had a limit of ten alphanumeric (plus space) characters, and there was absolutely a market for shorter or cooler screen names (SNs). There was even a marketplace (unauthorized) where accounts were sold by squatters in much the same way as domain names were at the height of the dot-com boom (and still are, to a large degree). Instead, my point was that there is a not-insignificant proportion of users who find value in such a system that does not make it easy for this type of squatting to occur to any meaningful scale. Those of us who DO find value in this property of the system would (in my opinion) be much less likely to invest their time and resources into a platform that chose to abandon it. Some people, maybe even most people, don't give a second sh*t about this issue; I simply present it as one reason among many why the current system shouldn't be changed (with the possible exception of your reassignment post-nitro issue, which is entirely separate).

    On the note of "It is important that the vast majority of users do not have custom discriminators", you are correct that I do find this to be a positive whereas you (and the OP) find this to be a negative. Yes, it is subjective. More significantly (IMO), this is the basis upon which most of my arguments stem. Even if you disregard everything else I've said, this is the main reason they should be kept. I will elaborate...

    If we can ignore the edge cases (Nitro users), the fact that discriminators are at-least presented with separation from the user-selected name is what distinguishes the OP's request from the current system. Even if I stipulate to the idea that "discriminator is intrinsic to identity (on the platform)", the visual and semantic separation makes it "not the same thing". The basic idea of "this is the part you chose" versus "this is the part we chose" is what gives the PRN-based system its value. At best Nitro subscription gives a tiny group of people a "cheat code" that doesn't negatively impact on anyone else's (non-subscribers') enjoyment of the service.

    If you play Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout (for example) and you choose to pay money to get a special costume, you can have the recognition of your efforts without meaningfully detracting from the enjoyment of other players. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but I hope it helps to illustrate my point from another perspective.

  • MarSprite

    sabinbro I appreciate that you have taken so much care in your response. I accept the apology. You are correct that my opinion on the issue is not wholly in support of the OPs perspective. I agree with OP that the system as it is is distasteful, but I do not agree that the ideal solution is to eliminate it.

    I too had AOL, since they sent out so many many coasters with free access. I never had a problem with their system though, and unless they started deleting accounts, I own a few names with no numbers. If a name I wanted had a number, I just came up with another one. Discriminators are better though, especially now that internet communication isn't niche.

    It's not that important, but while you say computers are not capable of generating true random numbers, that's not completely accurate; I direct you to Cloudflare, or just search "random lavalamp" with no quotes. Other solutions exist as well. It's all weird workarounds, but I think some are as true random as it gets.

    As for the Forbes article, my purpose in the manner I addressed it was to inform you that I wasn't going to look at the data, why, and that I didn't feel I had to contest(or confirm) the point I thought you were making, and also my interpretation of that point. I did throw in that I find them to be non-Authoritative, but that was about bashing Forbes, not a desire for the same(or similar) data from another source. I think it's easy enough to log into a few big discord servers and see that most users don't have nitro, no extra source needed.

    I question your position that "[you] do not argue that discriminators have value" since, that is in direct opposition to your position that discriminators should exist. To say that they should exist is incompatible with the position that they have no value, I believe. In fact, a great deal of your text has served to outline that value.

    My desire to have a method to alter the discriminator portion of the identity that doesn't have to be sustained by subscription, is not unrelated to the OPs post, as I see it. If the OP and others had the means to change permanently change the discriminator to something meaningful to them, it would go a long way towards solving OPs problem(inability to recall the discriminator), as stated in their initial post. Though, I do suspect that it would not satisfy OP. It's not really necessary to have a binary opinion on the OPs position to post here, I'm definitely on topic.

    As part of "anyone else" and a "non-subscriber", I'm here to tell you that the Nitro system for name changing HAS negatively impacted my experience of the Discord service. It's also apparent that it negatively effected the OPs experience. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the people negatively effected by it, and while I will concede that MOST Discord users would probably not put themselves on the list- you saying "anyone else" was hyperbole.

    If you play Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout (which I don't, so afaik:) The string of characters utilized to contact you is either entirely subject to change with one time or no fee(steam/xbl/psn), or if you're on Nintendo it's not customizable at all(friend codes). Your costume or skin would be analogous on Discord to an avatar, an in server name, or even a status. It doesn't allow others to contact you, it's just how you look.

    On your argument that "Even if I stipulate to the idea that 'discriminator is intrinsic to identity (on the platform)', the visual and semantic separation makes it 'not the same thing'". - By that notion, because people simply address John Jacob Smith as John, and may not even be aware of his other names specifics, those names are not part of Johns identity. Or if it is limited to the visual, then Jacob is not part of his identity, because he doesn't sign that name, and most people who have seen his first and last will have never seen his middle. The fact is that Johns identity actually covers a great deal more than his name, in fact it covers pretty much anything John chooses. Whether that's his name, the people he hangs out with, his favorite sport team, or that he wears polka-dot boxers. So then was the identity in context all the attributes that make up a given Discord users identity? Not when I used it. My use was limited to the characters required to add a Discord user to a friends list, separate from those that they may wish to retain privacy for(such as their email or phone number, or real name). In that sense, the discriminator is part of the identity, and that's objective fact. Perhaps others were using the word differently, I can't speak to them. In this thread though, I have stated that as what I am referencing "I'm not really interested in playing semantics with Username, login, display name, etc. The public facing identity, which is used to find you."

    Blizzards system, has actually changed. They call it a Battletag Code now, though I don't know that it was called that originally. Apparently I never noticed the policy change because I customized myself and never looked back. So yeah, maybe they changed it because of exactly the sorts of problems that you suggested might occur, though I don't find any evidence of that either- it just looks like they quietly took away the ability to change it, at least 4 years ago. However, I still like their system better, because nobody pays upkeep for identification. I would feel that way even if I had to have a random one, instead of a grandfathered custom one. I'll admit I am a little pleased on a personal level that I get to keep my custom tag, but if they were going to go random only, they should have led with that because it's a little unfair I think. So yeah, I retract them as an example of my ideal system.

    MrBatmanOwl the purpose of a randomized number rather than a sequential assignment is to prevent the rise of elitism based on how low(or high) your tag is. I actually think that the auto assign a random is the way to go for the initial number.

    I just would feel better about it if the tag was either random only, or changeable with a one time fee.

    I actually hate how easy it is to change identities in modern chat software, and I wish a name change of any kind had a cost. I have to go through and manually give everyone I meet a nickname, or they will change their name and I won't know who they are. So there's a likely unpopular opinion. This is especially true of online acquaintances, because often my only point of reference for them is the identity they changed from. I guess I would rather a system where the friends list kept track of the name you added them as originally, but nobody is doing that yet afaik.

  • GinaBot

    This entire thread is about you being too dumb to remember even 4 digits. Nothing to it.

  • GinaBot

    MarSprite That's the biggest load of bull I've ever seen. Evidently you're not a programmer. The reason why discriminators are randomly generated and not checked from #0000 is because it'd be too expensive to compute. Simple as that. All the code has to do in the way it's currently programmed is toss a random number and if it's taken, toss another, and if that's taken, toss another, rinse and repeat until an unused one is found. If it was coded like how you described and let's say there were 300 people with the same usernames, it'd need to check 300 times. Get it? Not hard.

    Now you're going to say, well, why not start counting from behind? Well, obviously because in Discord, you're allowed to delete your account meaning that discriminator will be freed up, and also users who have Nitro and change their discriminators from a random one will also free up those 4 digits previously used. Which goes back to my previous comment about randomly generated numbers being the most efficient. Simple concept. 

  • MarSprite

    @GinaBot you're ridiculous on so many levels. Sequential address assignment is how nearly everything in computing is done, random is the exception, not the norm.
    It's hilarious to have you tell me that that would take lot's of computational power, because computers were working sequential numbers when they were still programmed with punch cards.
    If you think about it for a moment, you'll realize it's as easy as 1, 2, 3 to compute an array on numbers all in your head.
    Computers are actually built specifically for this, computation. I can think of a half a dozen ways to do it off the top of my head, but first! I'm going to poke a hole in the way you think they have chosen to do it.

    How efficient do you think it would be to roll random numbers until you randomly got the outcome that wasn't selected if 9998 out of the 9999 discriminators were already taken? Not very. In fact, randomizers can and do spit out the same number in succession with what I find to be a somewhat disturbing frequency.
    So you could be looking at quite a few random digits, since each attempt would have a 1/9999 chance, or about .0001% chance if you want a decimal. Statistics are a funny thing, so that doesnt actually mean you're going to get a hit if you try 10000 times.
    And random numbers, they cost more than iterating.
    Certainly, it may seem efficient to you for a situation in which there are maybe 100 people or less with the same name, but while I don't know the numbers, surely some names are popular enough to pull an internet sized crowd.

    If I was designing it, and wanted it sequential(which I wouldnt) I'd probably run it with a sql server, since I am familiar and it's a strong tool. Each name would get an entry in the database, each name would have a count, a list of existing discriminators and their associated internal account ID(a number), a count of deleted discriminators, a list of deleted discriminators, all entries sorted sequentially.
    I'd have it first check if the number of discriminators in use was less than the max, and if not, deny. Then I'd try to pop the front of the list of deleted discriminators, and give them that number. If none, then assign the number of assigned discriminators plus 1 as their discriminator.
    Very minimal calculation. No wasted effort.

  • GinaBot

    Smart people are the exception, not the norm, so I guess dumb people should be running the show.
     Let's say a certain username has hit 5000 discriminators. Your method would have to go through the entire 5000 every single time via iteration. An RNG takes as much computation as that and can generate a value in less time for a production app like this which has millions of users.You were clearly not using SFMT. I've shipped software for 10 years, if you've done the same, I'd love to hear more about it. Thanks for the obvious comment, almost everything production-ready is based on SQL.

    You should try it out on a sandbox and see which one is inherently faster and then come back here with the results ;) I sure know which one I will choose.


Iniciar sesión para dejar un comentario.