I'll have to admit, I don't really agree with the removal of the Comments number on profiles. Not only because you can't see it anywhere else, but also due to the fact I could use it to see if there are new comments/replies on my alternate accounts.

NoxSpooth wrote:

I'll have to admit, I don't really agree with the removal of the Comments number on profiles. Not only because you can't see it anywhere else, but also due to the fact I could use it to see if there are new comments/replies on my alternate accounts.

That's a good point!

But it would only tell you if there was activity on the profile, right? Not on any projects, studios, forum topics, etc. And you would have to remember what the comment count was from the last time you checked, in order to notice anything new. So I'm afraid I don't find this a compelling case for restoring the comment count.

Paddle2See wrote:

NoxSpooth wrote:

I'll have to admit, I don't really agree with the removal of the Comments number on profiles. Not only because you can't see it anywhere else, but also due to the fact I could use it to see if there are new comments/replies on my alternate accounts.

That's a good point!

But it would only tell you if there was activity on the profile, right? Not on any projects, studios, forum topics, etc. And you would have to remember what the comment count was from the last time you checked, in order to notice anything new. So I'm afraid I don't find this a compelling case for restoring the comment count.

Paddle2See is right.
But I agree with tons of Scratchers when I say there was absolutely no good reason to remove the comment count.
Even though I do not like it, I see why you took out the follower count.
But why the comment count?
Some people (COUGHCOUGHMECOUGHHACK) like to keep track of their milestones. And it doesn't quite help to have to count EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT.

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

This makes sense now that you explain it, but I'm still kind of upset.

Shiverberry wrote:

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

But it doesn't matter if a scratcher is popular or not. That's what this whole update was about

Dunno

Unlocked wrote:

Shiverberry wrote:

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

But it doesn't matter if a scratcher is popular or not. That's what this whole update was about

I know…

Unlocked wrote:

Shiverberry wrote:

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

I think Scratchifier was trying to convey the message that more popular Scratchers of our community are annoyed, not just *everyone else*…

But it doesn't matter if a scratcher is popular or not. That's what this whole update was about

Exactly.

That's what makes the quote so ironic, I guess

Unlocked wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

4. In a matter of minutes, I've several Scratchers have all gotten annoyed at this change. They are also some reputable Scratchers, such as: VoltageGames, WILL_WAM, ELSA_THE_CONQUEROR, -Flash-, TheAnimationShow… need I continue?

Who cares if they are reputable.

Imagine if the US was like that. Only the people who are CEOs of big companies or are own a sports team get to vote. That would not reflect the actual popular vote in any way, shape, or form.

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

Although I should probably edit the wording, because some of the Scratchers I listed might not meet those qualifications, like being on Scratch for a long time.

Personally, I really don't like the direction that U.S.A is headed in. So I think that it would be better if the voting age was 30 years old or higher. How about that?

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

I've been on Scratch for a long time and I still support this change. But that simply doesn't make my opinion superior.

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

Zro716 wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

I don't click on links leading away from scratch, sorry.

Zro716 wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

As soon as you post that link, you are “appealing to authority”. But that site is nonsense anyway, because sometimes the clouds are gray, and sometimes they're a puffy white. Just because the site exists doesn't mean that it's true. In fact, you can easily destroy any argument by linking to that site (if it were actually accurate).

Side note: the example for Appealing to Authority is gibberish anyway, obviously written by a biased person who can't win any arguments so they just say that other arguments are “not good enough”. The example should be: “Not able to defend his position that evolution ISN'T TRUE, Bob says that he knows a scientist who can obviously prove evolution false, but it doesn't matter anyway because nobody listens to Creationist scientists anyway, even though they're right.”

Hopefully this post doesn't start a religious debate. If it does, bring it to my profile. xD

NoxSpooth wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

I've been on Scratch for a long time and I still support this change. But that simply doesn't make my opinion superior.

I think everyone's opinions are equal, although, yes, I find it easier to trust older/experienced Scratchers.

Superdoggy wrote:

Side note: the example for Appealing to Authority is gibberish anyway, obviously written by a biased person who can't win any arguments so they just say that other arguments are “not good enough”. The example should be: "Not able to defend his position that evolution ISN'T TRUE, Bob says that he knows a scientist who can obviously prove evolution false, but it doesn't matter anyway because nobody listens to Creationist scientists anyway, even though they're right."

That's quite a bias you got there too.

Superdoggy wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

Well, who would you trust more with the updates to the site: an older Scratcher or somebody who has been on the site for a long time and has gotten integrated into the community:

OR

Somebody who joined a few months ago who doesn't really understand the full structure of the Scratch website.

*cough* black-or-white *cough*

As soon as you post that link, you are “appealing to authority”. But that site is nonsense anyway, because sometimes the clouds are gray, and sometimes they're a puffy white. Just because the site exists doesn't mean that it's true. In fact, you can easily destroy any argument by linking to that site (if it were actually accurate).

…

Hopefully this post doesn't start a religious debate. If it does, bring it to my profile. xD

gee whiz dude, can you stop pretending and start actually debating for once? no one will take you seriously if you add smilies to your post and call off your opponent's arguments as inferior to yours. for once, just debate from an objective standpoint.

NoxSpooth wrote:

Superdoggy wrote:

Side note: the example for Appealing to Authority is gibberish anyway, obviously written by a biased person who can't win any arguments so they just say that other arguments are “not good enough”. The example should be: "Not able to defend his position that evolution ISN'T TRUE, Bob says that he knows a scientist who can obviously prove evolution false, but it doesn't matter anyway because nobody listens to Creationist scientists anyway, even though they're right."

That's quite a bias you got there too.

That's the point. It's sarcasm. xD

Zro716 wrote:

gee whiz dude, can you stop pretending and start actually debating for once? no one will take you seriously if you add smilies to your post and call off your opponent's arguments as inferior to yours. for once, just debate from an objective standpoint.

I'd actually post more seriously if you didn't start pointing out so-called “logical fallacies” in other peoples' posts, or if others would stop rambling on about how all of the arguments are “nonsense” or “straw men”. This includes the Scratch Team.
Seriously, just post your opinion on the issue and not on how my or others' arguments have a bunch of flaws. If all you want to do is shoot down others' arguments, then I'm not even going to post anything other than sarcastic put-downs of your posts. xP

It's fine to debate, but don't just say “your argument has a logical fallacy”, dismiss the argument, and treat that as 100% truth. Because in the end, the post with the logical fallacy is the one linking to some random site that really has no merit.

So really, please just debate from an objective standpoint.

Oh wait, oops, there might have been some sarcasm there. xD no offense, just making a (slightly pointed) joke to get my point across.