TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

dave4681 wrote:

The 3 examples are meant to give you an idea of what extremely minor is. You should be able to figure out your objective qualification yourself, like everyone else on this topic has

Maybe I can be more clear on exactly why this is not satisfying.

Consider, for example, a platformer project. Surely you would agree that only changing the color of the main sprite is “extremely minor.” This makes sense. You would also probably agree that changing the color of all the main sprite's costumes is “extremely minor.” However, I imagine that you would agree that changing the color palette for the whole game is certainly not at all “extremely minor” - I'm talking about taking, say, a serious game with everything colored in grays and browns and recoloring the whole thing with yellows and pinks.

All of these examples I've given fall under the same category: changing colors. My question is, where is the threshold at which point the project becomes “extremely minor”? And should we then qualify changing a single pixel outside of that threshold as no longer extremely minor, and allowed to be on the site?

Can you see my problem? Your definition is necessarily arbitrary, and arbitrary rules are not something that I think Scratch should have.

The objective qualification is that if there is only one small change that barely changes the course of the project, it's extremely minor.

The reason no-one else has asked this is because they've all made an effort to properly read the post.

The OP wrote:

Mind that, for each of the examples, they were the ONLY minor thing that was changed in the entire project.

Sigton wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

It does when they lie and say that they made it by themselves in the notes and credits, assumedly to bypass the credits requirement. Support to require the username of the person you remixed from in the credits.

When someone remixes one of my projects, but doesn't give credit, I ask them to please credit me, and they do credit me. Sometimes just asking is the right way to go

In my case I did. I asked for credit in the Notes and Credits and they just flipped out and lied about making it themselves. Four times.

I got sick of it the third, asked one last time, and when they lied then, I reported them and every other stolen project they'd uploaded.

dave4681 wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

dave4681 wrote:

The 3 examples are meant to give you an idea of what extremely minor is. You should be able to figure out your objective qualification yourself, like everyone else on this topic has

Maybe I can be more clear on exactly why this is not satisfying.

Consider, for example, a platformer project. Surely you would agree that only changing the color of the main sprite is “extremely minor.” This makes sense. You would also probably agree that changing the color of all the main sprite's costumes is “extremely minor.” However, I imagine that you would agree that changing the color palette for the whole game is certainly not at all “extremely minor” - I'm talking about taking, say, a serious game with everything colored in grays and browns and recoloring the whole thing with yellows and pinks.

All of these examples I've given fall under the same category: changing colors. My question is, where is the threshold at which point the project becomes “extremely minor”? And should we then qualify changing a single pixel outside of that threshold as no longer extremely minor, and allowed to be on the site?

Can you see my problem? Your definition is necessarily arbitrary, and arbitrary rules are not something that I think Scratch should have.

The objective qualification is that if there is only one small change that barely changes the course of the project, it's extremely minor.

The reason no-one else has asked this is because they've all made an effort to properly read the post.

The OP wrote:

Mind that, for each of the examples, they were the ONLY minor thing that was changed in the entire project.

“small” and “barely” are not objective.

@braxbroscratcher
as I already said that's irrelevant because it's already not allowed

No support. Would a project get removed if you just had the default project with a Scratch Cat and changed it to red?

No support. This is rejected already. Also, it's a change, why care about the size? Any remix is okay if there's a change.

I had to put up with the “anti-recolor” art freaks.

dave4681 wrote:

The objective qualification is that if there is only one small change that barely changes the course of the project, it's extremely minor.

Yes. I understand that. But where is the threshold? Is is really fair that if you only change a little bit less than some arbitrary threshold, your project is no longer allowed to be on Scratch?

I would like you to answer my question. If the only change you are making is changing colors, where is the threshold at which you have changed enough colors?

dave4681 wrote:

The reason no-one else has asked this is because they've all made an effort to properly read the post.

If you're implying that my opinion is frivolous simply because it's not very common, that doesn't seem like a good mindset for debate - all sides are worth considering, even those that only a few people hold.

And yes, I have read the post - about 10 times - and I find it still doesn't answer my questions.

Firedrake969 wrote:

dave4681 wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

dave4681 wrote:

The 3 examples are meant to give you an idea of what extremely minor is. You should be able to figure out your objective qualification yourself, like everyone else on this topic has

Maybe I can be more clear on exactly why this is not satisfying.

Consider, for example, a platformer project. Surely you would agree that only changing the color of the main sprite is “extremely minor.” This makes sense. You would also probably agree that changing the color of all the main sprite's costumes is “extremely minor.” However, I imagine that you would agree that changing the color palette for the whole game is certainly not at all “extremely minor” - I'm talking about taking, say, a serious game with everything colored in grays and browns and recoloring the whole thing with yellows and pinks.

All of these examples I've given fall under the same category: changing colors. My question is, where is the threshold at which point the project becomes “extremely minor”? And should we then qualify changing a single pixel outside of that threshold as no longer extremely minor, and allowed to be on the site?

Can you see my problem? Your definition is necessarily arbitrary, and arbitrary rules are not something that I think Scratch should have.

The objective qualification is that if there is only one small change that barely changes the course of the project, it's extremely minor.

The reason no-one else has asked this is because they've all made an effort to properly read the post.

The OP wrote:

Mind that, for each of the examples, they were the ONLY minor thing that was changed in the entire project.

“small” and “barely” are not objective.

@braxbroscratcher
as I already said that's irrelevant because it's already not allowed

But ‘one’ is objective.
Also, there's not an objective qualification for what is inappropriate on this site, is there?

And, I feel you and MonsterofTheDeep are misinterpreting this topic on purpose. You're just picking bits out of the op the are good for no supporting and ignoring the rest

dave4681 wrote:

But ‘one’ is objective.
Also, there's not an objective qualification for what is inappropriate on this site, is there?

Yes, there is - it's very easy to determine if something is violent, or too adult, or whatever. And, even if it isn't always clear cut, it's always possible to just be more strict - there are no real consequences for banning, for example, a scary project, even if maybe it could still stay on the site.

However, there are consequences for banning a project that is not considered remixed enough, even if maybe it is - you hurt potential for creativity.

dave4681 wrote:

And, I feel you and MonsterofTheDeep are misinterpreting this topic on purpose. You're just picking bits out of the op the are good for no supporting and ignoring the rest

I don't misinterpret things on purpose. That would be silly.

I merely have a very real concern about the implications of this suggestion, and I would like to know if there are things that can be done to address said concern.

dave4681 wrote:

And, I feel you and MonsterofTheDeep are misinterpreting this topic on purpose. You're just picking bits out of the op the are good for no supporting and ignoring the rest

Well if you focus on the good parts it won't get any better, will it now.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

In my case I did. I asked for credit in the Notes and Credits and they just flipped out and lied about making it themselves. Four times.

I got sick of it the third, asked one last time, and when they lied then, I reported them and every other stolen project they'd uploaded.

And that is already against the rules, so not relevant to what we're discussing here.

Sigton

Why does everyone want credit automatically done when it's already implemented. That's just putting your face on everything.

You already get a bar below the project

As long as the creator of the remix gives proper credit, there's nothing extremely wrong with these. It's not as harmful as say, art theft or using assets without permission and credit.

However, if these bother you, or the creator doesn't change anything, than there's one fail-proof solution…

Use the report button.

When I look at a minor remix on my project, I think of it as someone liked my project. I know a lot of people get annoyed by them though, and I totally understand that.

No Support

I feel that some of the reasoning is coming from stereotypes and assumptions. While it's okay to make some logical guesses, I think at this point it may be best to stick with the facts because there is such a great mix to intentions and it's hart to tell whether or not a user is actually trying to learn, or if they are plain copying it to tease another user.

The problem with assuming that one person is trying to simply learn and actually likes it is that they don't really need to share it. It's somewhat like the logic with duplicate topics- why share a pretty much copied project of someone else's when the original is already shared? Unless you need tons of scripts, it doesn't seem logical that they are sharing it.

On the other hand, if you assume that the person is always trying to annoy and copy your projects, it forms a stereotype. You immediately think that a very minor and unnoticeable change does not constitute a remix, and therefore be reported. But then that is inconsiderate- if a person is young and doesn't really know what they are doing, just shares it, but is legitimately learning how to use the blocks to produce a product, then it should be fine and constructive, right?

The point is, the assumptions and stereotypes are only from one point of view (the user reporting their findings themselves). Because there is much inconsistency to what the user's intentions are, I recommend we drop this part of the debate as it serves no further purpose.

Thelnvoker wrote:

As long as the creator of the remix gives proper credit, there's nothing extremely wrong with these. It's not as harmful as say, art theft or using assets without permission and credit.

However, if these bother you, or the creator doesn't change anything, than there's one fail-proof solution…

Use the report button.

sidenote - art theft isn't really a thing on Scratch unless you define it as claiming it as yours or not crediting the original creator, and you don't need permission to use assets that are on Scratch

DownsGameClub wrote:

I feel that some of the reasoning is coming from stereotypes and assumptions. While it's okay to make some logical guesses, I think at this point it may be best to stick with the facts because there is such a great mix to intentions and it's hart to tell whether or not a user is actually trying to learn, or if they are plain copying it to tease another user.

The problem with assuming that one person is trying to simply learn and actually likes it is that they don't really need to share it. It's somewhat like the logic with duplicate topics- why share a pretty much copied project of someone else's when the original is already shared? Unless you need tons of scripts, it doesn't seem logical that they are sharing it.

On the other hand, if you assume that the person is always trying to annoy and copy your projects, it forms a stereotype. You immediately think that a very minor and unnoticeable change does not constitute a remix, and therefore be reported. But then that is inconsiderate- if a person is young and doesn't really know what they are doing, just shares it, but is legitimately learning how to use the blocks to produce a product, then it should be fine and constructive, right?

The point is, the assumptions and stereotypes are only from one point of view (the user reporting their findings themselves). Because there is much inconsistency to what the user's intentions are, I recommend we drop this part of the debate as it serves no further purpose.

If you're just trying to learn how to use the scripts and blocks, why would you share it if you changed literally one value or scribbled over every sprite?
You see, it just doesn't make logical sense. Even if they're young, I still don't see why the would upload it.
Most of these projects appear to be actually attempting to rip-off the original project, by changing one, tiny thing to count it as a valid remix, while sharing it to get more views on their behalf.

WolfCat67 wrote:

DownsGameClub wrote:

I feel that some of the reasoning is coming from stereotypes and assumptions. While it's okay to make some logical guesses, I think at this point it may be best to stick with the facts because there is such a great mix to intentions and it's hart to tell whether or not a user is actually trying to learn, or if they are plain copying it to tease another user.

The problem with assuming that one person is trying to simply learn and actually likes it is that they don't really need to share it. It's somewhat like the logic with duplicate topics- why share a pretty much copied project of someone else's when the original is already shared? Unless you need tons of scripts, it doesn't seem logical that they are sharing it.

On the other hand, if you assume that the person is always trying to annoy and copy your projects, it forms a stereotype. You immediately think that a very minor and unnoticeable change does not constitute a remix, and therefore be reported. But then that is inconsiderate- if a person is young and doesn't really know what they are doing, just shares it, but is legitimately learning how to use the blocks to produce a product, then it should be fine and constructive, right?

The point is, the assumptions and stereotypes are only from one point of view (the user reporting their findings themselves). Because there is much inconsistency to what the user's intentions are, I recommend we drop this part of the debate as it serves no further purpose.

If you're just trying to learn how to use the scripts and blocks, why would you share it if you changed literally one value or scribbled over every sprite?
You see, it just doesn't make logical sense. Even if they're young, I still don't see why the would upload it.
Most of these projects appear to be actually attempting to rip-off the original project, by changing one, tiny thing to count it as a valid remix, while sharing it to get more views on their behalf.

Seems like everything is starting to be based on assumptions now

Shouldn't this be closed already? It's rejected:

14. Banning minor remixes
Remixes are allowed as long as at least something is changed, even if it's minor.

dude341 wrote:

Shouldn't this be closed already? It's rejected:

14. Banning minor remixes
Remixes are allowed as long as at least something is changed, even if it's minor.

The title says “Extremely minor”. If it was just minor it would've been closed already.

The reason why it's still open is probably due to the logic that DGC listed.
i would've said it myself. But there's a 75% chance that people would just deny it. Plus they worded it better than I would've

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

Shouldn't this be closed already? It's rejected:

14. Banning minor remixes
Remixes are allowed as long as at least something is changed, even if it's minor.

The title says “Extremely minor”. If it was just minor it would've been closed already.

The reason why it's still open is probably due to the logic that DGC listed.
i would've said it myself. But there's a 75% chance that people would just deny it. Plus they worded it better than I would've

The ST has said multiple times that no matter how minor a remix is, it still counts. That's probably not going to change, so this should be closed.

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

dude341 wrote:

Shouldn't this be closed already? It's rejected:

14. Banning minor remixes
Remixes are allowed as long as at least something is changed, even if it's minor.

The title says “Extremely minor”. If it was just minor it would've been closed already.

“Extremely minor” and “minor” are basically the same thing here since they are both rather inexact phrases.