Should Scratch have a "Content ID" of its own?

iamunknown2

Zro716 wrote:
I would employ another automatic moderation system like this:
…
The advantage of the system above is that if a bunch of spambots decide to group together and spam upvotes whatever spam they had, 1) they would need to gain reputation/weight first, which would take a long time, 2) if they gradually gained weight before gradually turning spam-mode, the anomalies would
I'm confused. How would appeal reports get in? Other users don't know if a project was reported or not, so they won't be able to counter a report they aren't aware of.

Simple: Make the option to appeal report show when the project IS reported. However, the name of the user who had reported it wouldn't be shown.

Zro716

iamunknown2 wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
I would employ another automatic moderation system like this:
…
The advantage of the system above is that if a bunch of spambots decide to group together and spam upvotes whatever spam they had, 1) they would need to gain reputation/weight first, which would take a long time, 2) if they gradually gained weight before gradually turning spam-mode, the anomalies would
I'm confused. How would appeal reports get in? Other users don't know if a project was reported or not, so they won't be able to counter a report they aren't aware of.
Simple: Make the option to appeal report show when the project IS reported. However, the name of the user who had reported it wouldn't be shown.

Still, I'm not convinced this process is well-thought through. It's essentially making confidential reports no longer confidential and allowing bystanders to sway judgment contingently. The longstanding code of ethics that the ST lives up to ordains the right to privacy when handling sensitive incidents, such as resolving a report, which stipulates that only the subjects of the incident shall be involved in judgment, not bystanders. If we let users inundate a public judgment system to resolve reports, this would not go as planned: for instance, consider members of fandom supporting a project from one of their own while it is under active judgment; the project could obviously hold violations against the CGs, but the members would have considerable “voting weight” that overturn the report. (Edit: imagine the appeal power that the thousands-strong FNAF fandom would have despite having been struck blows by the ST's crackdown on scary projects)

Last edited by Zro716 (May 13, 2016 03:34:49)

Deerleg

Back to original post.

In theory, supposing that we could actually design something like that, this would be helpful in case people don't know where to give credit. In practice, though, it's not feasible, but we're not talking about that.

Still, though, we should try to find an alternative method that's easier to implement.

Zro716

Deerleg wrote:
Still, though, we should try to find an alternative method that's easier to implement.

Okay… how about we start by putting Credits in its own box? It makes me uncomfortable that it's conjoined with Notes, because after remixing everything's cleared and any sources cited don't get preserved.

dude341

No support. We have “Fair Use” on Scratch.

iamunknown2

Zro716 wrote:
iamunknown2 wrote:
Zro716 wrote:
I would employ another automatic moderation system like this:
…
The advantage of the system above is that if a bunch of spambots decide to group together and spam upvotes whatever spam they had, 1) they would need to gain reputation/weight first, which would take a long time, 2) if they gradually gained weight before gradually turning spam-mode, the anomalies would
I'm confused. How would appeal reports get in? Other users don't know if a project was reported or not, so they won't be able to counter a report they aren't aware of.
Simple: Make the option to appeal report show when the project IS reported. However, the name of the user who had reported it wouldn't be shown.
Still, I'm not convinced this process is well-thought through. It's essentially making confidential reports no longer confidential and allowing bystanders to sway judgment contingently. The longstanding code of ethics that the ST lives up to ordains the right to privacy when handling sensitive incidents, such as resolving a report, which stipulates that only the subjects of the incident shall be involved in judgment, not bystanders. If we let users inundate a public judgment system to resolve reports, this would not go as planned: for instance, consider members of fandom supporting a project from one of their own while it is under active judgment; the project could obviously hold violations against the CGs, but the members would have considerable “voting weight” that overturn the report. (Edit: imagine the appeal power that the thousands-strong FNAF fandom would have despite having been struck blows by the ST's crackdown on scary projects)

I think I said this based on anomalies. I think I forgot to say that it should apply to all cloud “loyalties”:

more than one “loyalty” to a cloud + how big the clouds the user is “loyal” to + how much “overlap” the cloud has

IgDegOo

Jonathan50 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
No support. Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights and Steven Hillenburg getting very angry at you.
I don't support either, but that's wrong. You should still respect copyright laws.

Show me a 7-year old that understands copyright law.

Jonathan50

IgDegOo wrote:
Jonathan50 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
No support. Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights and Steven Hillenburg getting very angry at you.
I don't support either, but that's wrong. You should still respect copyright laws.
Show me a 7-year old that understands copyright law.

There are millions? Even if someone doesn't they can learn

IgDegOo

Jonathan50 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
Jonathan50 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
No support. Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights and Steven Hillenburg getting very angry at you.
I don't support either, but that's wrong. You should still respect copyright laws.
Show me a 7-year old that understands copyright law.
There are millions? Even if someone doesn't they can learn

I don't think their parents would be happy if they did
Why would they even want to in the first place

also, this is an interesting site

Jonathan50

IgDegOo wrote:
Jonathan50 wrote:
There are millions? Even if someone doesn't they can learn
I don't think their parents would be happy if they did

What? Parents are usually sane.

Why would they even want to in the first place

Why not? Do you think they'd rather not use anything by anyone else without specific instructions to at all?

Firedrake969

Sure, in theory.
Since we're avoiding the topic about whether it's even feasible.

Deerleg

Zro716 wrote:
Deerleg wrote:
Still, though, we should try to find an alternative method that's easier to implement.
Okay… how about we start by putting Credits in its own box? It makes me uncomfortable that it's conjoined with Notes, because after remixing everything's cleared and any sources cited don't get preserved.

I think it'd be redundant if we had “Instructions”, “Notes”, and “Credits”, so maybe we could just remove the “Notes” part of Notes and Credits? (That sounds really awkward though.)

liam48D

IgDegOo wrote:
Jonathan50 wrote:
IgDegOo wrote:
No support. Scratch is not a place to worry about copyrights and Steven Hillenburg getting very angry at you.
I don't support either, but that's wrong. You should still respect copyright laws.
Show me a 7-year old that understands copyright law.

Here's the copyright law as far as it matters to a seven year old:

Give credits to the creators of things you use in your project that you didn't make.

:tada:

Discuss Scratch