Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support. It's a valid reason and one of the few that is actually used when new scratchblocks are considered. How would you propose this was implemented? Adding “confusing to new scratchers” to the bad word filter?

Yeah… this. We don't want to make the bad word filter even more ridiculous/worse.

#nosupport

Well, in my original post I wrote that it shouldn't be used as a valid reason to “no support” and that should be added to the sticky. I wasn't suggested to filter this or actually punish people for saying this. If I was, I'd have put it in the post. Saying that it may be confusing doesn't seem like a valid reason to “no support.” As many others have brought up in this thread, there are things in Scratch that are confusing to New Scratchers, but that doesn't mean they have no place here. What makes you see this as a valid reason?

Ok… so if this was to be added then what would happen if someone said this is confusing to new scratchers?

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support. It's a valid reason and one of the few that is actually used when new scratchblocks are considered. How would you propose this was implemented? Adding “confusing to new scratchers” to the bad word filter?

Yeah… this. We don't want to make the bad word filter even more ridiculous/worse.

#nosupport

Well, in my original post I wrote that it shouldn't be used as a valid reason to “no support” and that should be added to the sticky. I wasn't suggested to filter this or actually punish people for saying this. If I was, I'd have put it in the post. Saying that it may be confusing doesn't seem like a valid reason to “no support.” As many others have brought up in this thread, there are things in Scratch that are confusing to New Scratchers, but that doesn't mean they have no place here. What makes you see this as a valid reason?

Ok… so if this was to be added then what would happen if someone said this is confusing to new scratchers?

It would be like when someone says “no support” without a reason. It should be discouraged as it doesn't really add to the argument.

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support. It's a valid reason and one of the few that is actually used when new scratchblocks are considered. How would you propose this was implemented? Adding “confusing to new scratchers” to the bad word filter?

Yeah… this. We don't want to make the bad word filter even more ridiculous/worse.

#nosupport

Well, in my original post I wrote that it shouldn't be used as a valid reason to “no support” and that should be added to the sticky. I wasn't suggested to filter this or actually punish people for saying this. If I was, I'd have put it in the post. Saying that it may be confusing doesn't seem like a valid reason to “no support.” As many others have brought up in this thread, there are things in Scratch that are confusing to New Scratchers, but that doesn't mean they have no place here. What makes you see this as a valid reason?

Ok… so if this was to be added then what would happen if someone said this is confusing to new scratchers?

It would be like when someone says “no support” without a reason. It should be discouraged as it doesn't really add to the argument.

So it's just something that would be frowned upon the community?
It's not like you can decide what the community can hate or not…

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support. It's a valid reason and one of the few that is actually used when new scratchblocks are considered. How would you propose this was implemented? Adding “confusing to new scratchers” to the bad word filter?

Yeah… this. We don't want to make the bad word filter even more ridiculous/worse.

#nosupport

Well, in my original post I wrote that it shouldn't be used as a valid reason to “no support” and that should be added to the sticky. I wasn't suggested to filter this or actually punish people for saying this. If I was, I'd have put it in the post. Saying that it may be confusing doesn't seem like a valid reason to “no support.” As many others have brought up in this thread, there are things in Scratch that are confusing to New Scratchers, but that doesn't mean they have no place here. What makes you see this as a valid reason?

Ok… so if this was to be added then what would happen if someone said this is confusing to new scratchers?

It would be like when someone says “no support” without a reason. It should be discouraged as it doesn't really add to the argument.

So it's just something that would be frowned upon the community?
It's not like you can decide what the community can hate or not…

I think it should be strongly discouraged, like when someones says “no support” without a warrant.

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support. It's a valid reason and one of the few that is actually used when new scratchblocks are considered. How would you propose this was implemented? Adding “confusing to new scratchers” to the bad word filter?

Yeah… this. We don't want to make the bad word filter even more ridiculous/worse.

#nosupport

Well, in my original post I wrote that it shouldn't be used as a valid reason to “no support” and that should be added to the sticky. I wasn't suggested to filter this or actually punish people for saying this. If I was, I'd have put it in the post. Saying that it may be confusing doesn't seem like a valid reason to “no support.” As many others have brought up in this thread, there are things in Scratch that are confusing to New Scratchers, but that doesn't mean they have no place here. What makes you see this as a valid reason?

Ok… so if this was to be added then what would happen if someone said this is confusing to new scratchers?

It would be like when someone says “no support” without a reason. It should be discouraged as it doesn't really add to the argument.

So it's just something that would be frowned upon the community?
It's not like you can decide what the community can hate or not…

I think it should be strongly discouraged, like when someones says “no support” without a warrant.

Your right…

support.
third time I changed my mind… why… mind…

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support. It's a valid reason and one of the few that is actually used when new scratchblocks are considered. How would you propose this was implemented? Adding “confusing to new scratchers” to the bad word filter?

Yeah… this. We don't want to make the bad word filter even more ridiculous/worse.

#nosupport

Well, in my original post I wrote that it shouldn't be used as a valid reason to “no support” and that should be added to the sticky. I wasn't suggested to filter this or actually punish people for saying this. If I was, I'd have put it in the post. Saying that it may be confusing doesn't seem like a valid reason to “no support.” As many others have brought up in this thread, there are things in Scratch that are confusing to New Scratchers, but that doesn't mean they have no place here. What makes you see this as a valid reason?

Ok… so if this was to be added then what would happen if someone said this is confusing to new scratchers?

It would be like when someone says “no support” without a reason. It should be discouraged as it doesn't really add to the argument.

So it's just something that would be frowned upon the community?
It's not like you can decide what the community can hate or not…

I think it should be strongly discouraged, like when someones says “no support” without a warrant.

Your right…

support.
third time I changed my mind… why… mind…

Thanks, I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from.
Also we should stop this quote train. Feel no need to reply.

No support as this will be confusing to new scratchers and old ones.

What should the response be to that in this new world order?

drmcw wrote:

No support as this will be confusing to new scratchers and old ones.

What should the response be to that in this new world order?

I answered that question above.

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support as this will be confusing to new scratchers and old ones.

What should the response be to that in this new world order?

I answered that question above.

I can see why people can be annoyed by just a “No support” but even then the person has taken time to comment and even bump your suggestion for you. You can reply and ask why they don't support.
Someone posts “No support as it's too confusing for new scratchers” and that is as annoying? Not only has the person responded they have also given a reason. You think the reason is invalid? You can see the criteria the scratch team use for scratch blocks and that reason is entirely valid. Surely it's then up to the OP or other supporters to consider the suggestion and if they disagree then reply and question it rather than dismiss it as invalid?

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support as this will be confusing to new scratchers and old ones.

What should the response be to that in this new world order?

I answered that question above.

I can see why people can be annoyed by just a “No support” but even then the person has taken time to comment and even bump your suggestion for you. You can reply and ask why they don't support.
Someone posts “No support as it's too confusing for new scratchers” and that is as annoying? Not only has the person responded they have also given a reason. You think the reason is invalid? You can see the criteria the scratch team use for scratch blocks and that reason is entirely valid. Surely it's then up to the OP or other supporters to consider the suggestion and if they disagree then reply and question it rather than dismiss it as invalid?

Where can I see the criterion for block suggestions you referenced? I actually don't think I ever saw that.

Letsgopitt wrote:

Cream_E_Cookie wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

No support. There is a huge difference between complex projects (ex griffpatch's projects) and a complex block/idea. To analyze why, let's compare an elementary-level novel and a really complicated word, such as discombobulate. (I'm sure at least half of the people reading this looked at the word and had no clue what it meant.) To an elementary student, both may seem complicated. The novel because it's got lots of words, but because it is an elementary-level novel, all of the words are going to be simple words that are easy to understand. This is just like a complex project on Scratch; it has a lot of blocks, but the blocks are easy to understand because they're worded in ways that are easy to understand and represent basic/necessary functions in programming. A big word, like discombobulate, would seem complicated because… well, it's a big, complicated word. Few, if any at all, elementary students would know what discombobulate means. Even after reading the definition, the word might still seem complicated. This is comparable to a complicated block, such as a split block or elseif/elif block. A new scratcher would not know what it does due to the block's complexity and, unlike a project, the scratcher cannot read the code to figure out what it does. Even after looking at the definition, it would still be hard to understand.

I understand what your getting at, but what do you see as being bad about teaching a new word to a student or teaching more programming concepts through Scratch?

Oh, so it is okay to teach young kids complex stuff? Then let's visit my local elementary school and teach all of the second graders about quantum physics.

DaSpudLord wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Cream_E_Cookie wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

No support. There is a huge difference between complex projects (ex griffpatch's projects) and a complex block/idea. To analyze why, let's compare an elementary-level novel and a really complicated word, such as discombobulate. (I'm sure at least half of the people reading this looked at the word and had no clue what it meant.) To an elementary student, both may seem complicated. The novel because it's got lots of words, but because it is an elementary-level novel, all of the words are going to be simple words that are easy to understand. This is just like a complex project on Scratch; it has a lot of blocks, but the blocks are easy to understand because they're worded in ways that are easy to understand and represent basic/necessary functions in programming. A big word, like discombobulate, would seem complicated because… well, it's a big, complicated word. Few, if any at all, elementary students would know what discombobulate means. Even after reading the definition, the word might still seem complicated. This is comparable to a complicated block, such as a split block or elseif/elif block. A new scratcher would not know what it does due to the block's complexity and, unlike a project, the scratcher cannot read the code to figure out what it does. Even after looking at the definition, it would still be hard to understand.

I understand what your getting at, but what do you see as being bad about teaching a new word to a student or teaching more programming concepts through Scratch?

Oh, so it is okay to teach young kids complex stuff? Then let's visit my local elementary school and teach all of the second graders about quantum physics.

Of course it's okay to teach to teach them complex things! Obviously, things like this would confuse a second grader, but, again, does this mean quantum physics shouldn't be taught because it has the potential to confuse someone? Of course not! By disagreeing with my suggestion, does that mean you think it is valid to reject a suggestion because a small minority won't know how to use it?

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support as this will be confusing to new scratchers and old ones.

What should the response be to that in this new world order?

I answered that question above.

I can see why people can be annoyed by just a “No support” but even then the person has taken time to comment and even bump your suggestion for you. You can reply and ask why they don't support.
Someone posts “No support as it's too confusing for new scratchers” and that is as annoying? Not only has the person responded they have also given a reason. You think the reason is invalid? You can see the criteria the scratch team use for scratch blocks and that reason is entirely valid. Surely it's then up to the OP or other supporters to consider the suggestion and if they disagree then reply and question it rather than dismiss it as invalid?

Where can I see the criterion for block suggestions you referenced? I actually don't think I ever saw that.

It's in this forum stickies and already referenced in a previous post but here it is again https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/245/

Letsgopitt wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

...

Of course it's okay to teach to teach them complex things! Obviously, things like this would confuse a second grader, but, again, does this mean quantum physics shouldn't be taught because it has the potential to confuse someone? Of course not! By disagreeing with my suggestion, does that mean you think it is valid to reject a suggestion because a small minority won't know how to use it?

Small minority? New scratchers may be small in numbers, but they are the most important part of Scratch because they are the ones that will eventually grow into talented Scratchers like griffpatch and superdoggy. Think about it- at one time, we were all new scratchers. Every user on here was once a new scratcher. And the reason we want to keep it simple for them is because Scratch is supposed to be a friendy, inviting program. Adding 100 complex functions will make the Scratch language seem hard to learn, complex, and scary for someone who has never had any experience programming. Like VoltageGames said-

VoltageGames wrote:

You're basically saying we should raise the low floor just because some people have a high ceiling?

Because doing so would destroy the design goals of Scratch. While New Scratchers may be in the minority, Scratch was designed for New Scratchers. Scratch revolves around making it easier for New Scratchers to program. Making it easy for New Scratchers to program is the foundation for which the scratchblocks were laid. New Scratchers make up the cornerstone of the building that is Scratch. And you are making them sound like they are unimportant. But they are. They are more important than you and I. We know how to use Scratch. We can be moving on to new languages soon. Soon, we won't need to be here. Scratch was not designed for the super-complex-programming versions of me and you. Scratch was not designed for the super-skilled versions of griffpatch and superdoggy. It was designed for the past versions of us, the New Scratchers that once were us. And it was and still is designed for every New Scratcher out there, past, present, and future. You are trying to turn Scratch into a super-complex programming language to suit your programming skill level. But that is not the point of Scratch. It never was. And it never will be. If you want to do advanced programming, then move on. Go use Java or C++. If you're going to keep complaining that Scratch is too simple for you, then why are you still here? Stop trying to make Scratch for the complex programmer you because that is not what it is made for. You and I are here to help the inexperienced. We are here to help the New Scratchers that have yet to learn how a list works or don't know how to create a platformer engine. That is our purpose. Sure, Scratch can be used to create complex stuff- after all, that is what the high ceiling is for. But when our hunger to create complex programs gets in the way of New Scratchers, that's when we have problems. So yes, Letsgopitt. To answer your question, I do think it is valid to reject a suggestion because a small minority won't know how to use it. Because that minority is the most important part of us. They are the underdogs. They are the griffpatchs and superdoggys of tomorrow. They are the ones Scratch was made for.

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

No support as this will be confusing to new scratchers and old ones.

What should the response be to that in this new world order?

I answered that question above.

I can see why people can be annoyed by just a “No support” but even then the person has taken time to comment and even bump your suggestion for you. You can reply and ask why they don't support.
Someone posts “No support as it's too confusing for new scratchers” and that is as annoying? Not only has the person responded they have also given a reason. You think the reason is invalid? You can see the criteria the scratch team use for scratch blocks and that reason is entirely valid. Surely it's then up to the OP or other supporters to consider the suggestion and if they disagree then reply and question it rather than dismiss it as invalid?

Where can I see the criterion for block suggestions you referenced? I actually don't think I ever saw that.

It's in this forum stickies and already referenced in a previous post but here it is again https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/245/

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I've seen those, I thought you meant there were ones specifically for blocks. My mistake.

DaSpudLord wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

...

Of course it's okay to teach to teach them complex things! Obviously, things like this would confuse a second grader, but, again, does this mean quantum physics shouldn't be taught because it has the potential to confuse someone? Of course not! By disagreeing with my suggestion, does that mean you think it is valid to reject a suggestion because a small minority won't know how to use it?

Small minority? New scratchers may be small in numbers, but they are the most important part of Scratch because they are the ones that will eventually grow into talented Scratchers like griffpatch and superdoggy. Think about it- at one time, we were all new scratchers. Every user on here was once a new scratcher. And the reason we want to keep it simple for them is because Scratch is supposed to be a friendy, inviting program. Adding 100 complex functions will make the Scratch language seem hard to learn, complex, and scary for someone who has never had any experience programming. Like VoltageGames said-

VoltageGames wrote:

You're basically saying we should raise the low floor just because some people have a high ceiling?

Because doing so would destroy the design goals of Scratch. While New Scratchers may be in the minority, Scratch was designed for New Scratchers. Scratch revolves around making it easier for New Scratchers to program. Making it easy for New Scratchers to program is the foundation for which the scratchblocks were laid. New Scratchers make up the cornerstone of the building that is Scratch. And you are making them sound like they are unimportant. But they are. They are more important than you and I. We know how to use Scratch. We can be moving on to new languages soon. Soon, we won't need to be here. Scratch was not designed for the super-complex-programming versions of me and you. Scratch was not designed for the super-skilled versions of griffpatch and superdoggy. It was designed for the past versions of us, the New Scratchers that once were us. And it was and still is designed for every New Scratcher out there, past, present, and future. You are trying to turn Scratch into a super-complex programming language to suit your programming skill level. But that is not the point of Scratch. It never was. And it never will be. If you want to do advanced programming, then move on. Go use Java or C++. If you're going to keep complaining that Scratch is too simple for you, then why are you still here? Stop trying to make Scratch for the complex programmer you because that is not what it is made for. You and I are here to help the inexperienced. We are here to help the New Scratchers that have yet to learn how a list works or don't know how to create a platformer engine. That is our purpose. So yes, Letsgopitt. To answer your question, I do think it is valid to reject a suggestion because a small minority won't know how to use it. Because that minority is the most important part of us. They are the underdogs. They are the griffpatchs and superdoggys of tomorrow. They are the ones Scratch was made for.

Okay, I don't want to start a flame war, but I am not trying to make Scratch too complex for New Scratchers to understand. I just feel that too many suggestions are gunned down to avoid potential confusion from New Scratchers. But we ahve have the Questions subforum, wiki, and tons of helpful Scratchers who are willing to help. I am not making New Scratchers sound unimportant. Don't accuse me of things I didn't do or say. I'm simply saying that, with all the helpful resources available to Scratchers old and new, a complex function should be considered based on its own merit. As I have said many times before, there are things in Scratch that could confuse New Scratchers. That doesn't mean those functions have no place in Scratch. I fully agree that New Scratchers are important. Scratch is a starting point to move onto other languages. Would it truly harm Scratch to teach just a few more programming concepts to New Scratchers? With all the resources available, New Scratchers will have two choices: to ask and learn what it does, or to ignore it. Many already ignore lists or pen. I'm not suggesting we add tons of new functions. Just ones that could help to educate New Scratchers and Scratchers about further programming.

Also, sorry for such a long post, but I had to reply to two quotes. If you quote me, please snip so you only see one of my replies.

Letsgopitt wrote:

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I've seen those, I thought you meant there were ones specifically for blocks. My mistake.

That's ok, I was being more specific about the blocks as that is where the “too complicated” comments tend to be in my experience and the following excerpt shows that such a comment shouldn't be invalid..

While you may want an atomic lambda 3d recursive sine function so you can use Scratch to calculate pi to 96 trillion digits, that may not be possible given the resources and design goals of Scratch. Luckily, there are better tools for that kind of thing out there.

As an aside what's wrong with a “No support” anyway? Scratch isn't a democracy and the more supports and less no supports means your suggestion will become reality.

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I've seen those, I thought you meant there were ones specifically for blocks. My mistake.

That's ok, I was being more specific about the blocks as that is where the “too complicated” comments tend to be in my experience and the following excerpt shows that such a comment shouldn't be invalid..

While you may want an atomic lambda 3d recursive sine function so you can use Scratch to calculate pi to 96 trillion digits, that may not be possible given the resources and design goals of Scratch. Luckily, there are better tools for that kind of thing out there.

As an aside what's wrong with a “No support” anyway? Scratch isn't a democracy and the more supports and less no supports means your suggestion will become reality.

I'm not against “no support”-ing. I just feel that saying “no support” without giving a reason doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's like you have an important point but you're keeping it all to yourslef, which helps no one.

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I've seen those, I thought you meant there were ones specifically for blocks. My mistake.

That's ok, I was being more specific about the blocks as that is where the “too complicated” comments tend to be in my experience and the following excerpt shows that such a comment shouldn't be invalid..

While you may want an atomic lambda 3d recursive sine function so you can use Scratch to calculate pi to 96 trillion digits, that may not be possible given the resources and design goals of Scratch. Luckily, there are better tools for that kind of thing out there.

As an aside what's wrong with a “No support” anyway? Scratch isn't a democracy and the more supports and less no supports means your suggestion will become reality.

I'm not against “no support”-ing. I just feel that saying “no support” without giving a reason doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's like you have an important point but you're keeping it all to yourslef, which helps no one.

Yes but “can be confusing to new scratchers” is a reason and why I don't support this suggestion.

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I've seen those, I thought you meant there were ones specifically for blocks. My mistake.

That's ok, I was being more specific about the blocks as that is where the “too complicated” comments tend to be in my experience and the following excerpt shows that such a comment shouldn't be invalid..

While you may want an atomic lambda 3d recursive sine function so you can use Scratch to calculate pi to 96 trillion digits, that may not be possible given the resources and design goals of Scratch. Luckily, there are better tools for that kind of thing out there.

As an aside what's wrong with a “No support” anyway? Scratch isn't a democracy and the more supports and less no supports means your suggestion will become reality.

I'm not against “no support”-ing. I just feel that saying “no support” without giving a reason doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's like you have an important point but you're keeping it all to yourslef, which helps no one.

Yes but “can be confusing to new scratchers” is a reason and why I don't support this suggestion.

Well, I cam't force you to change your opinion, but I just think that suggestions should be judged by their own. I don't think huge, complex functions should be added, but more complex ones should still be considered, especially if they will teach users how to use specific functions in other programming languages.

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

drmcw wrote:

Letsgopitt wrote:

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I've seen those, I thought you meant there were ones specifically for blocks. My mistake.

That's ok, I was being more specific about the blocks as that is where the “too complicated” comments tend to be in my experience and the following excerpt shows that such a comment shouldn't be invalid..

While you may want an atomic lambda 3d recursive sine function so you can use Scratch to calculate pi to 96 trillion digits, that may not be possible given the resources and design goals of Scratch. Luckily, there are better tools for that kind of thing out there.

As an aside what's wrong with a “No support” anyway? Scratch isn't a democracy and the more supports and less no supports means your suggestion will become reality.

I'm not against “no support”-ing. I just feel that saying “no support” without giving a reason doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's like you have an important point but you're keeping it all to yourslef, which helps no one.

Yes but “can be confusing to new scratchers” is a reason and why I don't support this suggestion.

Well, I cam't force you to change your opinion, but I just think that suggestions should be judged by their own. I don't think huge, complex functions should be added, but more complex ones should still be considered, especially if they will teach users how to use specific functions in other programming languages.

So why are you suggesting to BAN that reason to warrant a “no support”?