I believe that there should be a team of moderators that can manually review user-created extensions and userscripts.

The team could be assembled from the currently active ATers or a small division of the Scratch Team. Each extension would have to follow several requirements:

• Does not collect user data
  
• Code must be publicly available
  
• Does not link to dangerous websites
  
• Follows community guidelines
  
• Submission request must include proper grammar and punctuation
  
• etc.
  

Users could submit a post inside a stickied forum topic requesting their extension be reviewed. Users would have to write a short summary of what their extension does, and how it adds enhances the end user's experience. The review process could be set up almost identically to how you sign up to be a Wiki contributor. Any advertisement for an extension that is not part of the Acceptable Extension Program would be subject to removal, and a special note sent to the user informing them of the problem. Repeated offenses could result in a ban. If an extension does not meet all requirements, the user would have a month to fix problems before resubmitting. A list of acceptable extensions would be present on the forum topic.

Any additions to this concept would be greatly appreciated

Sample of request:

Name of extension: Example

One sentence blurb for the list: My extension does X

How extension is used:
Please include a 5 to 8 sentence summary as to the purpose of the extension

Link for extension: example.com

Link to source code: example.com/code

I am aware that if I do not follow all requirements, I will not be able to resubmit for a month.

-@NitroCipher

support

Yes, that would make a lot of sense. Support

This is what we need.

I think is is a good idea. The Scratch Team won't be bothered by checking extensions. It will be like the Community Moderator programme. Also it will keep the majority of the isOnline users happy because they want their stupid crown. (sorry if this offended you) Support.

World_Languages wrote:

This is what we need.

Agreed.

Support, I've been thinking of this.

I think it should at least be a filter-bot.

AmazingMech2418 wrote:

I think it should at least be a filter-bot.

Pretty tough for a filter bot to check if an extension is safe.

KingOfAwesome58219 wrote:

AmazingMech2418 wrote:

I think it should at least be a filter-bot.

Pretty tough for a filter bot to check if an extension is safe.

Really? https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/284272/?page=14#post-2909366

It could be like this: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/4421/

pufflegamerz wrote:

It could be like this: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/4421/

Yes! Also there could be a safety issue in one of them but advertising them is allowed. Technically the extensions are websites created by members.

Or just requiring that you tell your users what your extension does, and the permissions it has

I think this is a good idea: there are a ton of people who want their little bunch of yellow pixels that vaguely resembles a crown because they put a link in their About Me.
Support!

Support! Maybe instead of Does not contain inappropriate content it should be Follows the community guidelines.

Support! This is a good idea. At least now the iO users can keep their golden hats.

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

Support! This is a good idea. At least now the iO users can keep their golden hats.

I completely agree with the idea, but I think iO should have a feature so you can choose to have a crown.

--Waterfall-- wrote:

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

Support! This is a good idea. At least now the iO users can keep their golden hats.

I completely agree with the idea, but I think iO should have a feature so you can choose to have a crown.

I don't understand why people think the only problem of the policy is the crown.

Take a comment like this, for example:

“I know you’re color-blind, so I suggest you use a program called f.lux, it lets you tweak colors and you’ll be able to code on Scratch easier”

That's now against the rules