Scratch gave me a warning and my sister a ban because my sister recommended a project to them using my laptop. .-. Trying to assume that users are the same person because they use the same laptop is a huge problem. This way of finding out whether or not users are different also makes it possible for the rich to recommend their own projects. Just buy a separate laptop. Scratch unfairly benefits the rich in this way.

CBPS wrote:

Scratch gave me a warning and my sister a ban because my sister recommended a project to them using my laptop. .-. Trying to assume that users are the same person because they use the same laptop is a huge problem. This way of finding out whether or not users are different also makes it possible for the rich to recommend their own projects. Just buy a separate laptop. Scratch unfairly benefits the rich in this way.

Seriously? Don't bring economics into the conversation because Scratch has nothing to do with the selling of computers.

It's a huge problem because nobody on the internet can be trusted (with the exception of people who have clearly proven to be trustworthy i.e. elected moderators). You are literally on a computer screen talking to no one you know, that is, unless you know them in real life which 99% of the time won't happen. Therefore, there is an unfortunate “gap” where there is constant tension on both sides because they don't know what's happening on either end.
In your case, they don't know if you have a sister or not at the time of the incidence. They assumed that both accounts, because you were using the same IP address and/or emails, were linked in the situation.

Just an FYI for everyone- please contact the Scratch Team if there is ever an issue with alerts or bans. For bans, please contact appeals@scratch.mit.edu. For generic problems, please use the contact us link here: https://scratch.mit.edu/contact-us/

I suppose I support because just assuming a user is someone else is a little.. Rude?
I mean, the Scratch Team really should say why they think the user is a banned user..
Just a problem. How would they know a user isn't actually the banned user?

LionHeart70 wrote:

I suppose I support because just assuming a user is someone else is a little.. Rude?
I mean, the Scratch Team really should say why they think the user is a banned user..
Just a problem. How would they know a user isn't actually the banned user?

evidence? the way bans currently work a user can be unbanned by stating they aren't the user, I am only stating giving evidence unless the user clearly stated they are that user

No support as somebody could easily just say they're not the user to circumvent bans.

Between 2013 - 2015, i got blocked from scratch for a year because I was remixing and sharing a lot of projects without making changes and saying thank you, I been trying to appeal my ban between 2013 - 2015, but all the answers I tried didn't work, I Was thinking to have a very good appeal answer to get myself unblocked, it did unblocked myself in just 3 days. This time I been making & remixing projects and changing the code and I said thank you and credit to (USERNAME).

Now, I been making my own projects and remixing lesser projects On This account & My 2nd main account: @Nicsena because I knew the risks of remixing other projects and not saying thank you.

That is why people been making their own projects. Or remixing them and changing them.