Quality Control. by zrodevkaan · Pull Request #62 · BetterDiscord/docs

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T04:24:57Z

Quality Control submission guidelines.

Quality Control #.4 may be removed/obsolete if we go with the plugin monorep.

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T04:27:21Z

Merged branch due to old commit history.

Reword #1. and #2 to allow user-elected supression, not a lesser replacement.

zerebos · 2026-09-10T04:49:42Z

Why did you manually number everything? They were intentionally left as 1. so everything after the first number was automatically incremented as per commonmark spec.

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T04:50:53Z

I don't know anything about commonmark spec. I will adjust that.

For reference; my IDE did that.

zerebos

The added sections don't match the existing voice and diction and seem hyper-specific which could lead to many future arguments, nitpicks, and exceptions.

There is also needless ordered list number churn.

Definitely need more opinions in this area cc: @doggybootsy

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T04:57:52Z

I feel like in past conversations we agreed in whats listed? has and wildcard selectors, or authors who submit seemingly looking ai generated plugins, asking for proof of actual knowledge.

We know automating quests can cause account suspension or quest suspension.

I added onto the dont waste resources area with known wasteful systems.

We've seen plugins being submitted with old discord vars (also circles back to AI generative area) that dont work and clearly havent been tested. along with multiple plugins just not caring about React crashes and just submitting fixes, which aggravated DevilBro with many repo issues.

I recall talking about licenses but I could be wrong.

Huderon · 2026-09-10T05:10:03Z

I think that first point in Quality Control you could probably break out into a “Usability” heading, similar to what already exists in the theme guidelines. It could almost be word for word the same with the caveat about plugins that explicitly hide/remove features. That caveat will also need some work though as it still excludes stuff like BetterBlockedUsers or whatever that DevilBro one is that hides messages from blocked users.

For the second and third, I’d create a new heading called “Testing” and throw them in there with a bit of rewording. Then, all that’s really left is licensing, which could also be its own heading

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T05:19:56Z

BetterBlockedUsers is okay to be excluded. Its under the accessibility category imo along with it being user elected.

I think I should probably break it into more sections than it just being under quality control.

Ill continue it after work.

Huderon · 2026-09-10T05:23:37Z

Yeah, I think BetterBlockedUsers is fine, but what you've got there at the moment excludes it, I think. Copying out that Usability heading and adding something like this below the first point would be enough for me

Exceptions can be made for plugins that are explicitly intended to remove or obscure undesirable native functionality

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T05:25:04Z

Maybe we can narrow it down to just user elected removal?

Huderon · 2026-09-10T05:26:09Z

Yeah, I think that's what "explicitly intended" implies, but it probably could use a bit more rewording

Huderon · 2026-09-10T07:22:44Z

You can probably also remove that excerpt from the Discord guidelines. It doesn't really help in defining what a selfbot is

zrodevkaan · 2026-09-10T10:03:49Z

Exceptions can be made for plugins that are explicitly intended to remove or obscure undesirable native functionality

This is too vague, of course this is discretion of the staff/reviewer but this just creates a loophole for lazy overrides.

I think the more specific we get here the better if we want to target developer code and the end users performance as a whole.

TheLazySquid · 2026-09-10T13:01:54Z

+**Exceptions:** #1 and #2 does not apply to addons that intentionally remove or block functionality for privacy/security reasons including but not limited to:.
+- Privacy/Security
+- Accessibility
+- Performance
+- Content/moderation control
+   - This only accounts for removing *specific* type of content including but not limited to: disabling embeds, nsfw previews.
+
+These are not required to be feature-complete replacements, as the addons purpose is intentional removal.


imo this is redundant since you're removing something rather than overriding it

Same argument here

This is too vague, of course this is discretion of the staff/reviewer but this just creates a loophole for lazy overrides.

TheLazySquid · 2026-09-10T13:03:44Z

+   - If the reviewing staff collectively agree that a submission appears to be AI-generated or otherwise not primarily written by the submitter, 
+   the plugin will be denied and the author may be asked to demonstrate competence or proof of knowledge (e.g. explaining the code, making a live modification, or a similar test) before resubmission will be considered.


I don't think this should be in the guidelines

I feel like it should be as we are being transparent with our userbase? We usually end up telling them in a support forum anyway.

This should go in the process rather than the guidelines if at all

TheLazySquid · 2026-09-10T13:09:29Z

+include anything that spams Discord's API or Protobuf (cloud sync).
+
+As taken from the Discord™️ guidelines
+> Don’t use the services to do harm to Discord. Among other things, this includes trying to gain access to, intentionally overburdening or attacking our systems; scraping our services without our written consent, including by using any robot, spider, crawler, scraper or other automatic device, process or software; selling, licensing or otherwise commercialising content or data obtained from our services; transmitting viruses or other malicious code to our services; using any unauthorised software designed to modify the services; abusing or defrauding us or our payment systems; copying, dismantling or reverse-engineering any of our services or using our intellectual property without permission; and misusing our reporting or customer service mechanisms.


Most of this doesn't really pertain to self-botting and just makes things more confusing imo. This definition also doesn't really help clear up what counts as self-botting; we allow things like automatically changing status when a game is launched but not scheduling messages, both of which are pretty ambiguous about being invoked by user action.

This one's going to require a bit of soul searching on the part of you lot 🤣

There's a clear line that has been crossed by plugins like the one you mentioned that automatically sets user status when they start a game, and it's going to make it so much harder to find a definiton that fits while making allowances for stuff like that. I would say stick to a standard definition and have plugins like that add a prompt before changing status or w/e

scheduling messages

Not only was that before the whole self bot chat, that was after the Nitro feature got added.

TheLazySquid · 2026-09-10T13:11:21Z

+      - Using non-user APIs, 
+      - Bypassing nitro features, 
+      - Animated status, 
+      - Message logging.


This doesn't risk a user's account, shouldn't be enumerated here imo. Covered by the following rule.

~~This does risk the user account? Its a suspension, it affects your account standing.~~
Not what he was arguing, discussion held elsewhere.

zrodevkaan added 2 commits September 9, 2026 23:23

Quality Control.

926f674

Merge branch 'main' into feat/quality-control

38480a3

zrodevkaan requested review from TheLazySquid and zerebos and removed request for TheLazySquid September 10, 2026 04:28

zrodevkaan added 3 commits September 9, 2026 23:32

Fix react based quality control

ab9e38f

Remove old, not possible plugin actions.

5ccd0ce

Disclosure

7055ed8

Reword #1. and #2 to allow user-elected supression, not a lesser replacement.

zerebos requested changes Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Fix numbers.

6518d13

zrodevkaan added 3 commits September 10, 2026 05:15

separated into categories.

c794374

Fix typo

0bc2f6d

Reword

b837e67

TheLazySquid reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

zrodevkaan added 2 commits September 10, 2026 09:20

Fixes & Rewording

7e630ad

Relocated process statement.

df16abf

		- If the reviewing staff collectively agree that a submission appears to be AI-generated or otherwise not primarily written by the submitter,
		the plugin will be denied and the author may be asked to demonstrate competence or proof of knowledge (e.g. explaining the code, making a live modification, or a similar test) before resubmission will be considered.

Uh oh!

Conversation

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

zerebos commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zerebos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Huderon commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Huderon commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Huderon commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Huderon commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zrodevkaan Sep 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Huderon commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zrodevkaan commented Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zrodevkaan Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

zrodevkaan Sep 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading