IP Banned Users Using Offline Editor? (2.0)

cheddargirl

contest101 wrote:
Personalty, I am against IP bans altogether. What about public IPs?

We use a different IP block for public IPs (such as school IPs) that has partial access (unless the negative behavior coming from the network was extremely heinous).

AonymousGuy

cheddargirl wrote:
^Yep, pretty much this. The exception would be for cases where IP being blocked is a school IP (which requires a special IP block designed to provide partial function of the Scratch website), but other than that, it doesn't make sense to provide a {free and non-profit!} service who did something so bad that an IP block had to be put into place.

Hmmm… That sure puts it in a different light. No support anymore.

1234abcdcba4321

I still support this.

An IP ban would be for something like spamming or other things, right? There should be no problems if they only had the offline editor and:
- Had no ability to share on the site
- Had no access to the register or login (Blocking most features)

Firedrake969

angelthekitkat wrote:
StarscreamClone wrote:
angelthekitkat wrote:
Scratch Community-
I have some friends who were ip banned recently and I've been keeping in touch with them. I think that at least those who have been ip banned should be allowed to use the program! Even though they were banned from the site, it wouldn't be fair to them. Scratch is for everyone. Some users who have been banned love the program, and would like to continue using it although they are not allowed on the site. Would you all be willing to sign a petition to put download links on the ip ban page?

Some users were IP banned because of something they never should have posted on the site– or anywhere, for that matter; I highly doubt ST would like to provide services for such users. Unless ST can easily differentiate between the major offenses and relatively minor ones (which I don't think it would be so unless they decide right when they're banning the user), I don't support.

I see your point… My only problem with this is that many of us feel that some of the ip banned users were banned unfairly.

I've looked around, and it seems that some people have used multiple alt accounts to get around bans rather than contacting the ST via email. If they feel they were banned unjustly, they should email the ST.

ProdigyZeta7

I see no harm in it. Support.

angelthekitkat

Firedrake969 wrote:
angelthekitkat wrote:
StarscreamClone wrote:
angelthekitkat wrote:
Scratch Community-
I have some friends who were ip banned recently and I've been keeping in touch with them. I think that at least those who have been ip banned should be allowed to use the program! Even though they were banned from the site, it wouldn't be fair to them. Scratch is for everyone. Some users who have been banned love the program, and would like to continue using it although they are not allowed on the site. Would you all be willing to sign a petition to put download links on the ip ban page?

Some users were IP banned because of something they never should have posted on the site– or anywhere, for that matter; I highly doubt ST would like to provide services for such users. Unless ST can easily differentiate between the major offenses and relatively minor ones (which I don't think it would be so unless they decide right when they're banning the user), I don't support.

I see your point… My only problem with this is that many of us feel that some of the ip banned users were banned unfairly.
I've looked around, and it seems that some people have used multiple alt accounts to get around bans rather than contacting the ST via email. If they feel they were banned unjustly, they should email the ST.

They have, multiple times.

Firedrake969

I've looked around more and seen that there have been good reasons for the bans. A while ago, I requested one of my accounts to be deleted (this was in around November) and it was quickly done. I'm not sure, but it might be that the ST doesn't reply to random “don't ban me I did nothing!” emails (sorry if it sounds assuming, I'm just thinking). This is a kid's site. Some people are annoyed that they get banned for swearing and doing other things against the guidelines, but they shouldn't be. Requesting to be unbanned for ban evading and repeatedly breaking the guidelines shouldn't get you unbanned

No support for reasons stated.

Last edited by Firedrake969 (March 16, 2014 17:15:17)

ESS830

I definitely support this.
It's a very good idea, because 2.0 is a very good program that should be available for use of everyone, banned or no. Some things are not appropriate for this site, but that doesn't mean people cannot hypercam it and post it on youtube or something (ex. something with a couple curse words and inappropriate implications, which would be at least ok on some other sites).

Firedrake969

ESS830 wrote:
I definitely support this.
It's a very good idea, because 2.0 is a very good program that should be available for use of everyone, banned or no. Some things are not appropriate for this site, but that doesn't mean people cannot hypercam it and post it on youtube or something (ex. something with a couple curse words and inappropriate implications, which would be at least ok on some other sites).

StarscreamClone wrote:
Some users were IP banned because of something they never should have posted on the site– or anywhere, for that matter; I highly doubt ST would like to provide services for such users.

cheddargirl wrote:
it doesn't make sense to provide a {free and non-profit!} service who did something so bad that an IP block had to be put into place.

mathfreak231

Firedrake969 wrote:
StarscreamClone wrote:
Some users were IP banned because of something they never should have posted on the site– or anywhere, for that matter; I highly doubt ST would like to provide services for such users.
cheddargirl wrote:
it doesn't make sense to provide a {free and non-profit!} service who did something so bad that an IP block had to be put into place.

mathfreak231 wrote:
So? It's not like they'll be allowed to share projects. It's possible to Scratch without sharing to the site.

Besides, isn't it a little bit of a personal attack to reject service to someone who got banned only on the site?

Firedrake969

The ST rejects their (free!) service to someone who misbehaved on their (free!) site. I'd say they have the right to do that…
It's not the issue of sharing projects. It's the issue of misbehaving and being banned yet still being able to use the service which they forfeit right to use.

Last edited by Firedrake969 (March 16, 2014 17:37:20)

ExtremeLogic

Support.

StarscreamClone

mathfreak231 wrote:
Firedrake969 wrote:
StarscreamClone wrote:
Some users were IP banned because of something they never should have posted on the site– or anywhere, for that matter; I highly doubt ST would like to provide services for such users.
cheddargirl wrote:
it doesn't make sense to provide a {free and non-profit!} service who did something so bad that an IP block had to be put into place.
mathfreak231 wrote:
So? It's not like they'll be allowed to share projects. It's possible to Scratch without sharing to the site.
Besides, isn't it a little bit of a personal attack to reject service to someone who got banned only on the site?

Firedrake969 wrote:
The ST rejects their (free!) service to someone who misbehaved on their (free!) site. I'd say they have the right to do that…
It's not the issue of sharing projects. It's the issue of misbehaving and being banned yet still being able to use the service which they forfeit right to use.

See this. I think many would agree with me– using Scratch is a privilege, not a right. If someone was IP banned, it was because they did something SEVERE, like say something they might get arrested for if it were offline, depending on who said it and in what manner, which is the scary thing; offline, you can usually tell if someone is joking or not about something. Online, you can't and you have no idea if the person saying this is a felon or legitimate stalker. I don't know about you, but I would not like to take a risk like that on a site full of kids, nor would I want to provide services for them.

Last edited by StarscreamClone (March 18, 2014 00:40:15)

Firedrake969

So you agree with me?

Then I agree with you.

StarscreamClone

Firedrake969 wrote:
So you agree with me?

Then I agree with you.

XD It was mostly directed to mathfreak.

Firedrake969

Oh, ok. Agreed xD

ProdigyZeta7

Okay, so since everything online is free to use, how about fine a user for access to the offline editor for download. Total denial of service if they don't pay, profit if they do.

Firedrake969

No support–people able to spend money on things more freely would be able to buy back things that they forfeit the right to use.

Last edited by Firedrake969 (March 18, 2014 01:37:23)

ESS830

StarscreamClone wrote:
mathfreak231 wrote:
Firedrake969 wrote:
StarscreamClone wrote:
Some users were IP banned because of something they never should have posted on the site– or anywhere, for that matter; I highly doubt ST would like to provide services for such users.
cheddargirl wrote:
it doesn't make sense to provide a {free and non-profit!} service who did something so bad that an IP block had to be put into place.
mathfreak231 wrote:
So? It's not like they'll be allowed to share projects. It's possible to Scratch without sharing to the site.
Besides, isn't it a little bit of a personal attack to reject service to someone who got banned only on the site?
Firedrake969 wrote:
The ST rejects their (free!) service to someone who misbehaved on their (free!) site. I'd say they have the right to do that…
It's not the issue of sharing projects. It's the issue of misbehaving and being banned yet still being able to use the service which they forfeit right to use.
See this. I think many would agree with me– using Scratch is a privilege, not a right. If someone was IP banned, it was because they did something SEVERE, like say something they might get arrested for if it were offline, depending on who said it and in what manner, which is the scary thing; offline, you can usually tell if someone is joking or not about something. Online, you can't and you have no idea if the person saying this is a felon or legitimate stalker. I don't know about you, but I would not like to take a risk like that on a site full of kids, nor would I want to provide services for them.

The fact that someone got IP banned could be for NUMEROUS reasons. Some people get IP banned because of their actions on Deviantart, which little kids have no business on. Scratch rules shouldn't really apply there, DA has their own riles that people are meant to follow, and that means that no, we don't follow most of the scratch rules there. No one should not get banned for DArama, it's unfair. Some people get IP banned for posting mean things about another scratcher, and in the situations I saw on DA, usually they deserved it (I don't know about other situations, but this is what I saw). You really wouldn't get arrested by the cops if you were calling someone a ‘b*#<%’, just maybe a look of annoyance. Same if you called someone a ‘b*#<%’ for getting their friends IP banned on scratch for DArama, which would then get them IP banned. The most, in my school at least, you'd get for both is a detention, not an arrest. Sure, you'd get IP banned for saying something that would actually get you arrested, but I don't see that occur really often.

cobraguy

ProdigyZeta7 wrote:
Okay, so since everything online is free to use, how about fine a user for access to the offline editor for download. Total denial of service if they don't pay, profit if they do.

Eh. I don't think it would work because it wouldn't be that hard to find another place to download the offline editor then transfer it over to their computer.

Looks like the Scratch Team won't add this so I guess that's what people are going to have to do.

Discuss Scratch