Are invite rewards agains't Discord ToS?
Hello guys. I've been looking for an official response to this, but I couldn't find it. I know that this official post talks about servers dedicated to giving rewards to people in exchange for invites. It says they could be punished if it leads to spam, but it doesn't talk about if you do it just once (like if it is a contest, and yes, for money) or if you give people roles when they reach X amount of invites.
I know, as an example, that the Sound's World Discord server (which was verified and partnered with Discord in the past) had a system that rewarded you with a role in exchange for X invites, so I guess that isn't against the ToS, but if it is what I said? Or if you give other currency than money for invites?
What I'm saying and asking is that, from what I've seen officially it is against Discord ToS having dedicated servers to invite rewards IF IT LEADS TO SPAM, which isn't very clear, because:
- What if it's not a dedicated server to invite rewards, and only do invite rewards once, like in a giveaway?
- What if it's a dedicated server to invite rewards, as a reward gives people real money but it doesn't lead to spam? Because the article mentioned above says explicitly that ‘we discourage this activity, because if it leads to spam we could take actions’ but it doesn't prohibits doing it, at least from what I can understand it says that “you shouldn't do this but you can if it doesn't lead to problems", but because I don't have it clear that why I ask.
- What if we give as a reward for doing invites something not economical, like roles, or even in-game currencies from videogames? It says that ‘those rewards are normally economical’, but it's not clear if it could be punishable other types of rewards.
To be honest, I'm probably just seeing “black holes” in the ToS and it's just a grey area, but if it's not and could lead to a punishment even if I do the said above, I would want to know it.
That's all. I think this is a very useless post because I want an official reply, but I doubt I can get it, so we can use it to discuss whether or not it should, could, or is punishable to do what I've said.
Greetings.
-
Discord has some kind of allergy to actually telling us what a new change encompasses, with details relevant to the actual use cases of whatever the new change deals with. I'll respectfully point back three months ago, to the New Username Scandal, which raised the minor issue of only the most controversial change the platform's ever seen in large part due to how absolutely dogshite everybody involved was when it came to transparency, expectations, support, and continued leadership. No information on when, no information on what versions of the client it would be applicable on, no warning that loads of names had been unfairly claimed by staff against the given rollout order, and a pile of blatant lies concerning the rollout priority during the timespan it was most relevant. Naturally, no attempt made to listen to their community in the aftermath, either.
And I'll kindly point to the mass reports of disabled accounts here, often with no evidence or information at all even when requested by the owner of the account, as a demonstration that Discord is not letting their ambiguous or straight up untrue official literature stay their hand when it comes to exercising judgement. And that's about the best discussion I can give- it doesn't matter what should be, when the boss plays by their own rules and refuses to clue you in on them.
It's a big part of the reasoning I switched to Revolt (https://revolt.chat/) when Discord began to take their “vigilante justice” approach.0
Du måste logga in om du vill lämna en kommentar.
Kommentarer
1 kommentar