imbh0458 wrote:

Here is my suggestion for scratch 3.0. I think that they should add a editors bar which means that the person who created the project can add people to make suggestions and help develop the game. I think it would help if this was added to scratch because maybe someone wants to be work in a team or maybe just you and your friend want to create the same game. Thanks!

DID YOU EVEN READ T H E T O P I C

Deleting inactive users is rejected as per https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/160908/?page=3#post-1765412

KJRYoshi07 wrote:

imbh0458 wrote:

Here is my suggestion for scratch 3.0. I think that they should add a editors bar which means that the person who created the project can add people to make suggestions and help develop the game. I think it would help if this was added to scratch because maybe someone wants to be work in a team or maybe just you and your friend want to create the same game. Thanks!

Did you even see the text that said “PLEASE DO NOT MAKE SUGGESTIONS HERE”?

This is actually, ironically enough, rejected anyway (if I read that right)

Thefrenchpeople wrote:

Deleting inactive users is rejected as per https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/160908/?page=3#post-1765412

Adding this now.

Hi there! I have a suggestion for this topic.

The rejected suggestion #30 (Bringing back the discuss tab) has a large block of text mostly explaining how to get to the forums, the future of the forums, and how to direct New Scratchers to the forums. However, there is only a little bit of information that actually explains why the feature is rejected.

While the link to @dietbacon's announcement should definitely stay, I would suggest removing the rest of the text and replacing it with the text that I have below, as it's much more concise and has more information that explains why this feature might be rejected. I don't think @dietbacon's announcement really suffices, either — it explains why the Discuss tab was removed, but not why bringing it back is rejected.

@Paddle2See himself has very recently commented this on my profile:

Paddle2See wrote:

Hey, I liked your post on the latest Discuss button topic. I don't know all the reasons either - but I think you are pretty close with your guesses. There is concern that the forums aren't the right place for Scratchers that are really new to the site. They can be confusing and they are not as well guarded as the main site so more vulnerable to spam and trolling. And I think it's a great idea to point them towards specific sections where you think they can benefit.

The stuff in italics is probably the only important stuff that you need to add.

Thanks for reading!

Za-Chary wrote:

Hi there! I have a suggestion for this topic.

The rejected suggestion #30 (Bringing back the discuss tab) has a large block of text mostly explaining how to get to the forums, the future of the forums, and how to direct New Scratchers to the forums. However, there is only a little bit of information that actually explains why the feature is rejected.

While the link to @dietbacon's announcement should definitely stay, I would suggest removing the rest of the text and replacing it with the text that I have below, as it's much more concise and has more information that explains why this feature might be rejected. I don't think @dietbacon's announcement really suffices, either — it explains why the Discuss tab was removed, but not why bringing it back is rejected.

@Paddle2See himself has very recently commented this on my profile:

Paddle2See wrote:

Hey, I liked your post on the latest Discuss button topic. I don't know all the reasons either - but I think you are pretty close with your guesses. There is concern that the forums aren't the right place for Scratchers that are really new to the site. They can be confusing and they are not as well guarded as the main site so more vulnerable to spam and trolling. And I think it's a great idea to point them towards specific sections where you think they can benefit.

The stuff in italics is probably the only important stuff that you need to add.

Thanks for reading!

Okay, thanks!

Here's a new one: removing project size limit.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/3288913/

Za-Chary wrote:

Here's a new one: removing project size limit.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/3288913/

Adding this.

Should “Porting to .EXE” be added, or does that sorta fall under the lines of “Restrict Remixing/See Inside”?

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/318336/?page=3#post-3303002

I think rejected suggestion 33 shouldn't apply to all franchises, as if you visit places like ffnet you can clearly see some authors (not the fan-fiction authors, the authors of the original franchises) specifically state you cannot produce fan material of said franchise.

Not a suggestion, just speculation since I'm not sure ^u^

when green flag clicked
forever
if <(otp canon?) = [true]> then 
SCREAM [YES YES YES]
  

else
stop [all]
end
end

Za-Chary wrote:

Should “Porting to .EXE” be added, or does that sorta fall under the lines of “Restrict Remixing/See Inside”?

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/318336/?page=3#post-3303002

Think it's pretty much the same thing.

snernow wrote:

I think rejected suggestion 33 shouldn't apply to all franchises, as if you visit places like ffnet you can clearly see some authors (not the fan-fiction authors, the authors of the original franchises) specifically state you cannot produce fan material of said franchise.

Not a suggestion, just speculation since I'm not sure ^u^

That just refers to how they're not going to ban projects that have to do with a franchise just because the original franchise has inappropriate content. I don't think I've ever heard of any authors of original franchises specifically saying you can't create fan-material of their franchise by all means, though.

ST shouldn't be able to post political views?!?!?!? NO WAY!!!!!!!

Wait, is the ability to switch the stage and script denied?

The opening post is so long it'd break length rules for 5763465 comments.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

PokemonDude21 wrote:

Wait, is the ability to switch the stage and script denied?

I'm not sure of the status of this. Will the Scratch Team make an option for it? Perhaps — I didn't hear anything about it being rejected.

However, from the sound of things, they are not going to permanently switch the stage location to the left.

Please add “online indicator” to the list of rejected topics, per

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/10579/

Thanks!

You might also consider adding “Removing online indicator” “Removing location feature”.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/321582/

(Don't forget about @Paddle2See's post just above mine!)

A new rejected suggestion; an online indicator:

Paddle2see wrote:

We (the Scratch Team) have talked it over a few times - but have never managed to convince ourselves that it is a feature that would benefit Scratch as a creative platform. Making projects, sharing projects, collaborating on projects: these are all things that can happen at a fairly slow pace - whether your friends are logged in or not. When they do log in, they can leave you a comment. An online indicator wouldn't be much help in these areas, which we consider to be the core functionality of Scratch.

I've gotten several suggestions to add “online indicator”, and I'll be doing that in a second.

I don't know if it is rejected, but i think Paddle2See was impling it just got rejected

Link