AFNNetworkK12 wrote:

Rejected Suggestion wrote:

4.1 Disable “See Inside” or restrict sharing
Some users want an option to prevent Scratchers from looking inside their project and using their artwork, scripts, or sounds (perhaps to hide surprises or prevent users from cheating). However, the motto of Scratch is “Imagine – Program – Share”. By sharing a project on the Scratch website, you are allowing others to see the code and potentially remix or reuse the data inside, as long as they give credit. (Please report any projects that do not seem to give credit for assets they did not make.) If you do not want other users to see inside your project, then do not share your project on the Scratch website.

Restricting sharing so that only certain users can view the project is also not going to be implemented. It is important for projects to be publicly shared for everyone to see so that people can report them if they are inappropriate. Only allowing certain users to view projects could increase the chance that inappropriate projects can be shared on the website, and this is an Internet safety issue. It could also be used for private messaging; for more information, see #6.1 on this list.

I guess scratch would break their own terms of use if they implemented it.

Terms Of Use wrote:

4.3 All user-generated content you submit to Scratch is licensed to and through Scratch under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. This allows others to view and remix your content. This license also allows the Scratch Team to display, distribute, and reproduce your content on the Scratch website, through social media channels, and elsewhere. If you do not want to license your content under this license, then do not share it on Scratch.

Let me guess. It is rejected because of the ToU.

AFNNetworkK12 wrote:

Let me guess. It is rejected because of the ToU.
Is this correct?

openPoll wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that adding the ability to only share projects with certain people is rejected, because it leads to private messaging?

StrangeMagic32 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

StrangeMagic32 wrote:

though I do believe you are allowed to say, “Please don't remix this, thanks.” because it's not a demand, where as saying, “DON'T REMIX THIS!” is a demand, but I'm not 100% sure…

That's not correct, either. It certainly sounds nicer, but there is no way to prevent people from remixing your projects, and I'm still pretty sure you can get reported for trying to prevent remixing.

hmm, okay, well then guess I was incorrect

Celestial_Candy wrote:

Well, I agree to not say that now, but sometimes scratchers never change anything when they remix it.
That leaves the creator thinking,
“What's the point? Why couldn't they leave it as it is?”

Za-Chary wrote:

noogai34 wrote:

“disable remixing”
@scratchitout1 “nullifies my remixes”. 1st there was a no, then there was “STOP INTERLUDING”. Does this come on to the list of rejections?

Can you explain what you mean by “nullifying your remixes”?

If that user is trying to prevent you from remixing their project, they cannot do that. If you see a project that says “NO REMIXING”, you can report it.

Za-Chary wrote:

openPoll wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that adding the ability to only share projects with certain people is rejected, because it leads to private messaging?

Yep, that's a pretty good reason to not implement that suggestion.

openPoll wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

openPoll wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that adding the ability to only share projects with certain people is rejected, because it leads to private messaging?

Yep, that's a pretty good reason to not implement that suggestion.

I think that should be added to the list (it's been suggested multiple times), don't you?

Za-Chary wrote:

openPoll wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

openPoll wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that adding the ability to only share projects with certain people is rejected, because it leads to private messaging?

Yep, that's a pretty good reason to not implement that suggestion.

I think that should be added to the list (it's been suggested multiple times), don't you?

…it is already on the list. See #2.1 and #4.1.

ValtryekOfficial wrote:

plz rethink when stop sign pressed it is easier to make a thumbnail _Sad

ValtryekOfficial wrote:

plz rethink when stop sign pressed it is easier to make a thumbnail _Sad

when green flag clicked
forever
wait (0.5) secs
reset timer
end

when [timer v] > (1)
...

when green flag clicked
set [ghost v] effect to (100)

StrangeMagic32 wrote:

so sorry Za-Chary… I didn't mean to take this spot :(

Za-Chary wrote:

StrangeMagic32 wrote:

so sorry Za-Chary… I didn't mean to take this spot :(

That's okay, thanks for the workarounds! I might add your post to the list anyway, for future reference.

I currently have the top of pages 6 and 7 reserved; I don't really need much more at the moment.

Epic_TV wrote:

Hmm……

Maybe you change 13+ version of Scratch to “Mature Version Of Scratch” because not all people suggest the age limit of 13, and mature expresses the idea better.

cs1093855 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Epic_TV wrote:

Hmm……

Maybe you change 13+ version of Scratch to “Mature Version Of Scratch” because not all people suggest the age limit of 13, and mature expresses the idea better.

Good idea — but 13 is a pretty common cutoff. I think the “age-restricted content” part of the suggestion also covers the fact that any sort of “mature only” content is not allowed on Scratch in general.