Update July 2022: Yep, five years on this thread is still active surprisingly, which does show a lot of community interest. The images have broken here due to the age of this post, but you can use this link to view a previous version of the page with the images: http://web.archive.org/web/20201209175111/https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/287079/


Hi all,
Currently when a user gets banned or suspended by the Scratch Team, they can't do anything. Not even access the Messages or ‘My Stuff’ pages. Instead, they are just met with this screen:

This means that months of projects are trapped, and this can upset the owner of the account.

Instead of this, I have come up with a better plan for bans. With mock images!

My Stuff Page



When a suspended account is logged in for the first time, they are not sent to the home page. Instead they are redirected to their “My Stuff” page where they are met with the suspension notification. This immediately lets the user know about the situation, and get to the right place where they can download or (possibly) modify their projects, as long as they aren't shared.

Unshared project page



Any unshared project can be freely modified or changed.

Shared projects

Projects that are shared can't be modified while they're shared. The user will have the option to unshare the project to make changes.
FancyFoxy suggested that projects should have an option to make an “Unshared copy”. I think that's okay, because it would just link directly to the the editors “Save as copy” feature.

Commenting, modifying studios, making comments, making new projects/studios, rating a project(loving or favoriting), following or unfollowing, modifying your profile(about me, what I'm working on, profile pic)…
..will all be blocked. Maybe blocking messages as well?

How would my ban concept be integrated?
My ban concept is not meant to replace the current system. It's meant to complement it. I'd like to think account violations in phases;

Phase 0:
Good account

Phase 1:
Alert sent to user

Phase 2:
My ban concept
I was thinking that my Phase 2 ban would only be for Scratchers, not New Scratchers.

Phase 3:
The current ban system.

Phase 4:
Account deletion

Phase 5:
IP bans/restrictions.#

The Scratch moderators would pick a suitable “phase” based on the violations. i.e if it was a first violation, like sharing an email, the user would be sent to phase 2.
Scratch developers - how I'd implement this:
Currently, the Scratch session JSON looks like this(DO NOT SHARE YOUR SESSION JSON without removing sensitive info.)
To implement this new system, I'd just change the “banned” parameter to “account_standing” then the phase they are on. i.e for a Phase 2 blocked account:
Support from ST or influential Scratchers


So what do you think? Support or no? Let me know, and feel free to ask questions.

Community additions: World_Languages
Support: World_Languages, Paddle2See(moderator), doqq
I've put lots of time into making and adding to this post, so if you support, I'd appreciate if you send others this post and ask for their opinion :)

I'm not sure on the “phases” thing. It was just an idea.
People seem to like it

Read before you say “No Support”

Charles12310 wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

It's a good idea, but it kinda makes the point of the ban useless.
The ban is to make sure you can't do anything on Scratch, so it punishes you from not being able to interact with your projects so you understand that you shouldn't do the action again. For instance, say you get grounded and then your parents decide to still let you play with your favorite toy. Doesn't really teach you the punishment.. and might lead to you thinking the action is okay to do.
Sorry.. no support for this reason.

It seems like you have misunderstood. The user did not suggest to still be able to interact with stuff on Scratch when you are banned. The user said that you are allowed to look at stuff but you are unable to interact with it. For example, you can look at a project that just recently received so much comments. You want to reply to them, but you can't because you are banned. That is what the user is trying to say. So in the real case of the example you demonstrated, the child can look at the toy, but he can't play with it because of the restriction.

Support. I don't see the harm in letting banned users modify unshared projects.

Support. I haven't faced a ban yet (at least not as far as I know), but I've seen this criticism come up a lot amongst Scratchers who have. This would be good as it still puts the ban firmly in place but lets users continue their enthusiasm to make projects, made all the more so by having stuff to share when they come back. It also puts the use of the program ahead of the social features. The phase idea is fairly good as well and the Scratch team could probably use it as a base.

Support; I was banned a couple days ago and was honestly shocked at how little I was able to do. I was at least expecting to have the ability to work on unshared projects, but I was blocked from EVERYTHING. It made me feel like I had to send an appeal just because I wanted to continue working on my project. Of course, I might have appealed anyway due to how I felt the ban was unwarranted (no further details will be provided) but I wouldn't have felt as much of a need to.

If this system was put in place, may I suggest another slight change? Instead of just allowing to edit unshared projects, maybe only block the area(s) in which the user did the bannable action? For example, if I said mean comments, I'd be banned from comments, but not projects. Or maybe if I shared inappropriate projects, I'd be banned from projects (and maybe even creation) but, say, not the forums or comments. If I did another bad action during the ban period, it'd be immediately put into your “Phase 3”, regardless of the severity of the action.

myeducate wrote:

The user will have the option to unshare the project to make changes.

I think that it still wouldn't be good to have to take a project that you could love be unshared forever just to make changes. Instead, it should show a “Save Unshared Copy” button which says next to it, “Save a copy of this project to make changes!”
Besides that, SUPPORT!

Support! I don't think it's that fair for banned users to not be able to even modify unshared projects. That could end up setting them weeks or months back on project development when they become unbanned. (I've never been banned before, but I've seen other Scratchers criticizing the current system.)

I like the phase idea as well.

██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
███     ███   ██   ████   ██   ███     ███
 █████████     █████  █████     █████████

I really like this idea and I support it!
there is a tiny voice saying ‘it’s a ban, you're supposed to be punished', but I know what it feels like… This would be nice (not that I get banned often or anything)

EDIT: not ninja'd but woah there -Shadowofthefuture-

I'd like to mention that this idea has been suggested before, and @cheddargirl posted about this and why it perhaps shouldn't happen:

cheddargirl wrote:

It doesn't make sense for the Scratch Team to allow banned users continue to have access to the Scratch server after an account has been blocked (this is to be especially true if the user was blocked for sharing inappropriate projects on the Scratch website) - you break the Community Guidelines, you pretty much forfeit the access to your account. That is the way it is on most other sites as well where you store your media.

cheddargirl wrote:

It doesn't make sense for us to spend time to code something that caters to blocked users. If users wish to continue having access to the Scratch website (and therefore to the servers where they save their projects for free), they shouldn't break the Community Guidelines at all. If users wish to have access back, they will need to appeal their account block and show they are capable of following the Community Guidelines.

cheddargirl wrote:

We don't block users for one bad comment (unless it was very bad). We usually send notification first, then we block if the notifications are not followed. Other times, our mute function temporarily mutes a user for a period of time if our word filter determines if the user is being disrespectful or unconstructive when commenting and also gives notice to the user about their commenting behavior, then we block if the user continues posting disrespectful or unconstructive comments after the mute function is lifted.

Similarly, if a project is censored, it goes back to being in an unshared state and a message is prompted to the user to change the project to something more appropriate (unless the project was highly inappropriate in the first time, which results in a block right away). Resharing the project without making it appropriate results in a block from the website

Users are usually given multiple chances to follow the Community Guidelines, we block them if they choose not to follow them or ignore them. It isn't fair to us to give them access to their accounts if they're going to continue using it to break the Community Guidelines despite being given chances to not do so.

Now it's possible that the Scratch Team's position has changed on this matter over the past, well, four years. But I thought I'd mention it anyways, as one of the few that remembers.

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

I'd like to mention that this idea has been suggested before, and @cheddargirl posted about this and why it perhaps shouldn't happen:

cheddargirl wrote:

It doesn't make sense for the Scratch Team to allow banned users continue to have access to the Scratch server after an account has been blocked (this is to be especially true if the user was blocked for sharing inappropriate projects on the Scratch website) - you break the Community Guidelines, you pretty much forfeit the access to your account. That is the way it is on most other sites as well where you store your media.

cheddargirl wrote:

It doesn't make sense for us to spend time to code something that caters to blocked users. If users wish to continue having access to the Scratch website (and therefore to the servers where they save their projects for free), they shouldn't break the Community Guidelines at all. If users wish to have access back, they will need to appeal their account block and show they are capable of following the Community Guidelines.

cheddargirl wrote:

We don't block users for one bad comment (unless it was very bad). We usually send notification first, then we block if the notifications are not followed. Other times, our mute function temporarily mutes a user for a period of time if our word filter determines if the user is being disrespectful or unconstructive when commenting and also gives notice to the user about their commenting behavior, then we block if the user continues posting disrespectful or unconstructive comments after the mute function is lifted.

Similarly, if a project is censored, it goes back to being in an unshared state and a message is prompted to the user to change the project to something more appropriate (unless the project was highly inappropriate in the first time, which results in a block right away). Resharing the project without making it appropriate results in a block from the website

Users are usually given multiple chances to follow the Community Guidelines, we block them if they choose not to follow them or ignore them. It isn't fair to us to give them access to their accounts if they're going to continue using it to break the Community Guidelines despite being given chances to not do so.

Now it's possible that the Scratch Team's position has changed on this matter over the past, well, four years. But I thought I'd mention it anyways, as one of the few that remembers.

See paddle2see's comment above^^
If a moderator thought this, they would change it to a phase 3 instantly. What's the point as well? There's 100,000+ users on Scratch now, and their servers have changed. The servers will still store the banned user, so what's the harm in letting them modify what they have?

FancyFoxy wrote:

myeducate wrote:

The user will have the option to unshare the project to make changes.

I think that it still wouldn't be good to have to take a project that you could love be unshared forever just to make changes. Instead, it should show a “Save Unshared Copy” button which says next to it, “Save a copy of this project to make changes!”
Besides that, SUPPORT!

Good idea.

myeducate wrote:

There's 100,000+ users on Scratch now, and their servers have changed. The servers will still store the banned user, so what's the harm in letting them modify what they have?

The harm that cheddargirl pointed out is that the Scratch Team might very simply not want to provide Scratch to users who are banned. Her point was that if you are banned from Scratch, it's because you failed to respect the website and it's rules – and if you failed to respect the website and it's rules, why should you be allowed to use a service it provides?

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

myeducate wrote:

There's 100,000+ users on Scratch now, and their servers have changed. The servers will still store the banned user, so what's the harm in letting them modify what they have?

The harm that cheddargirl pointed out is that the Scratch Team might very simply not want to provide Scratch to users who are banned. Her point was that if you are banned from Scratch, it's because you failed to respect the website and it's rules – and if you failed to respect the website and it's rules, why should you be allowed to use a service it provides?

Yes, but have you ever made a mistake over and over again?

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

myeducate wrote:

There's 100,000+ users on Scratch now, and their servers have changed. The servers will still store the banned user, so what's the harm in letting them modify what they have?

The harm that cheddargirl pointed out is that the Scratch Team might very simply not want to provide Scratch to users who are banned. Her point was that if you are banned from Scratch, it's because you failed to respect the website and it's rules – and if you failed to respect the website and it's rules, why should you be allowed to use a service it provides?

That's what phase 3 is for. Please read my above post fully. ^^

myeducate wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

myeducate wrote:

There's 100,000+ users on Scratch now, and their servers have changed. The servers will still store the banned user, so what's the harm in letting them modify what they have?

The harm that cheddargirl pointed out is that the Scratch Team might very simply not want to provide Scratch to users who are banned. Her point was that if you are banned from Scratch, it's because you failed to respect the website and it's rules – and if you failed to respect the website and it's rules, why should you be allowed to use a service it provides?

That's what phase 3 is for. Please read my above post fully. ^^

I did? So you're saying that full-on suspensions, with no project access, would still happen?

In that case, I believe that this suggestion is essentially unnecessary, and would also potentially have unintended consequences the opposite of what is desired.

Users already regain access to their projects at the end of a temporary ban, which is what the moderation team currently uses in less severe cases of infraction. However, if users who do receive a temporary ban see that they still have access to their projects, they might not consider the consequences of their actions as much and get further bans in the future, because losing access to your projects is a good disincentive towards bad behavior.

I could see these being useful in a permaban, if a user has been bad enough to warrant one but for whatever reason the mods still want to grant access to projects.

I suppose I don't disagree with the concept as a whole – I'm just cautioning that perhaps it would be good to only implement this for permabans.

Support. I need a way to view all of the “Where is SonicMasterSystem comments” when I get banned.

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

I'd like to mention that this idea has been suggested before, and @cheddargirl posted about this and why it perhaps shouldn't happen:
…

Now it's possible that the Scratch Team's position has changed on this matter over the past, well, four years. But I thought I'd mention it anyways, as one of the few that remembers.

I think the question starts becoming, “Does the Community Guidelines only apply to stuff posted online?” From there that would probably decide the future implementation of this suggestion. Of course, the story with the Terms of Service is quite different, since it goes into the details when using Scratch offline.

I honestly like the idea. It allows people to continue coding without having interaction with outside users, which really correlates to Scratch's goal. Can the banned user, however access shared projects from other users and take scripts/remix them? I'm not sure if that would be considered official interaction, but it would likely make the coding process much harder for other users.

I agree but what about like how I hacked DeleteThisAcount would he be banned?

cuz i guessed the password

Edit: I got my account back but I really hope the hacker just spammed a bit and didn't do anything else bad.

PS: The part before the edit was not me it was the hacker

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

myeducate wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

myeducate wrote:

There's 100,000+ users on Scratch now, and their servers have changed. The servers will still store the banned user, so what's the harm in letting them modify what they have?

The harm that cheddargirl pointed out is that the Scratch Team might very simply not want to provide Scratch to users who are banned. Her point was that if you are banned from Scratch, it's because you failed to respect the website and it's rules – and if you failed to respect the website and it's rules, why should you be allowed to use a service it provides?

That's what phase 3 is for. Please read my above post fully. ^^

I did? So you're saying that full-on suspensions, with no project access, would still happen?

In that case, I believe that this suggestion is essentially unnecessary, and would also potentially have unintended consequences the opposite of what is desired.

Users already regain access to their projects at the end of a temporary ban, which is what the moderation team currently uses in less severe cases of infraction. However, if users who do receive a temporary ban see that they still have access to their projects, they might not consider the consequences of their actions as much and get further bans in the future, because losing access to your projects is a good disincentive towards bad behavior.

I could see these being useful in a permaban, if a user has been bad enough to warrant one but for whatever reason the mods still want to grant access to projects.

I suppose I don't disagree with the concept as a whole – I'm just cautioning that perhaps it would be good to only implement this for permabans.

My system is meant to give the moderation team more flexibility, so they can pick the best action.

Support. I had to log off to view the site when I was banned.