The Official List of Rejected Suggestions

Za-Chary

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:
The link in “censor projects with no coding” doesn't work.

Thanks, I will post the main rejection quote below and then redirect the link to it.

Za-Chary

Paddle2See wrote:
Blaze349 wrote:
No support.

With Scratch, you can program your own interactive stories, games, and animations — and share your creations with others in the online community.

Scratch helps young people learn to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively — essential skills for life in the 21st century.

Scratch is a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is provided free of charge.

Imagine, Program, Share

Scratch's focus is not on programming but on logical, creative thinking to solve problems using a set of tools and sharing it with the wider community. Scratch is not for people who want to learn programming but for those who want to learn why they are programming what they are programming.
Right - Scratch is about more than just programming. The Lifelong Kindergarten Group (part of the MIT Media Lab) that created Scratch is interested in enabling digital creativity - in many forms. So, while programming with Scratchblocks is one way to be creative, so is displaying art or creating a story through roleplaying comments.

Thanks for your suggestion - but we are not currently interested in limiting the kinds of creative activities that take place on Scratch.

TigeyTheTiger

i learned JAVASCRIPT!!!!!!!

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

TigeyTheTiger wrote:
i learned JAVASCRIPT!!!!!!!

Cool! Why don't you talk more about that here so that more people will see it?

TheNothingBird

Nice! i think you typed alot!

Bluebatstar

Would an Advanced version of Scratch be rejected? I see it suggested relatively frequently, and people always quote 7.2 when saying it's rejected, which I believe doesn't fit.

Za-Chary

Bluebatstar wrote:
Would an Advanced version of Scratch be rejected? I see it suggested relatively frequently, and people always quote 7.2 when saying it's rejected, which I believe doesn't fit.

I think that's one of those suggestions that really depends on what the suggestion is. For instance, I've seen suggestions of “Make an advanced version of Scratch so you can put 3D Scratch in it” — that would be rejected, since 3D Scratch is rejected. Similar to “Advanced version of Scratch that allows you to code using text” — that is rejected since text-based coding is rejected. That is also similar to “Advanced version of Scratch where you must be 13+ to use it” — that is rejected since age-restricted content is rejected.

Now, let us suppose that someone suggests something like “Advanced version of Scratch with extra math functions, like exponent, nth root, integral, derivative, summation, product, and complex numbers.” Then the main suggestion isn't really an “advanced” version of Scratch — rather, the suggestion is extra math blocks. We could honestly implement extra math blocks without needing to introduce a separate “advanced” Scratch. Either we could just include the blocks in the standard palette, or we could make a “math extension” for them.

If someone suggests “Advanced version of Scratch” but doesn't state how this is different from normal Scratch, then that's not really much of a suggestion. It's like suggesting “Improve the Scratch editor” but not saying what needs to be improved about it. So usually “Advanced version of Scratch” is not itself a suggestion — rather, there is something else being suggested. In that case, whether or not it is rejected depends on whether their idea of an “advanced Scratch” is rejected.

On the other hand, I could possibly be wrong, so if you have some examples of “Advanced version of Scratch” suggestions, I'd like to see them.

Super_Scratch_Bros20

Rejected (I'll get duplicates in a second)

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/436087/?page=1#post-4382461

I believe I've seen @xXRedTheCoderXx make one, too, but I can't find the link anymore; it's buried under a large quantity of questions on the abbreviation.

I think this might be worth adding, including a misunderstanding that it is not allowed, seems rejected multiple times, and (although this is not Suggestions), many users don't know the answer judging by the number of questions in QaS about it, and many QaS users also use Suggestions.

Last edited by Super_Scratch_Bros20 (Oct. 29, 2020 14:31:22)

xXRedTheCoderXx

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
I believe I've seen @xXRedTheCoderXx make one, too, but I can't find the link anymore; it's buried under a large quantity of questions on the abbreviation.

Lol no, I've actually never made a suggestion about that. You must've mistaken for another person or something.

Super_Scratch_Bros20

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:
Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
I believe I've seen @xXRedTheCoderXx make one, too, but I can't find the link anymore; it's buried under a large quantity of questions on the abbreviation.
Lol no, I've actually never made a suggestion about that. You must've mistaken for another person or something.

It was LM*O, LM**O, etc. Are you sure you don't remember it?

I know it's allowed, but I still censored it myself since I still don't like to say it in general.

itschaoticcrazycat

Can I rant about why the 13+ website thing is rejected? (although you guys already know)

WARNING: TAKE YOUR RANT-PROTECTION UMBRELLA

Super_Scratch_Bros20

itschaoticcrazycat wrote:
Can I rant about why the 13+ website thing is rejected? (although you guys already know)

WARNING: TAKE YOUR RANT-PROTECTION UMBRELLA

I'm not a mod or anything, but I think a respectful, constructive response would be more efficient and useful. It helps to mold things into what they can become.

itschaoticcrazycat

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
itschaoticcrazycat wrote:
Can I rant about why the 13+ website thing is rejected? (although you guys already know)

WARNING: TAKE YOUR RANT-PROTECTION UMBRELLA

I'm not a mod or anything, but I think a respectful, constructive response would be more efficient and useful. It helps to mold things into what they can become.

oki dokey

xXRedTheCoderXx

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:
Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
I believe I've seen @xXRedTheCoderXx make one, too, but I can't find the link anymore; it's buried under a large quantity of questions on the abbreviation.
Lol no, I've actually never made a suggestion about that. You must've mistaken for another person or something.

It was LM*O, LM**O, etc. Are you sure you don't remember it?

I know it's allowed, but I still censored it myself since I still don't like to say it in general.

Yeah, if I made a topic about it I would remember it.

You're probably thinking of this post: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/394968/?page=2#post-3924434 or something. The topic's deleted though, idk why.

Super_Scratch_Bros20

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:
Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:
Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
I believe I've seen @xXRedTheCoderXx make one, too, but I can't find the link anymore; it's buried under a large quantity of questions on the abbreviation.
Lol no, I've actually never made a suggestion about that. You must've mistaken for another person or something.

It was LM*O, LM**O, etc. Are you sure you don't remember it?

I know it's allowed, but I still censored it myself since I still don't like to say it in general.
Yeah, if I made a topic about it I would remember it. You're probably thinking of this post: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/394968/?page=2#post-3924434 or something. The topic's deleted though, idk why.

Someone did. Regardless,

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
Rejected (I'll get duplicates in a second)

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/436087/?page=1#post-4382461

I believe I've seen @xXRedTheCoderXx make one, too, but I can't find the link anymore; it's buried under a large quantity of questions on the abbreviation.

I think this might be worth adding, including a misunderstanding that it is not allowed, seems rejected multiple times, and (although this is not Suggestions), many users don't know the answer judging by the number of questions in QaS about it, and many QaS users also use Suggestions.

We've still got a whole post worth of info to cover. The above is why it should probably be added on here.

Za-Chary

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:
Rejected (I'll get duplicates in a second)

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/436087/?page=1#post-4382461

I think this might be worth adding, including a misunderstanding that it is not allowed, seems rejected multiple times, and (although this is not Suggestions), many users don't know the answer judging by the number of questions in QaS about it, and many QaS users also use Suggestions.

Well, this is awkward and controversial… this is the first rejected suggestion that I openly “reject” the rejection. I really don't think this should be rejected, and I don't think it should be added to the list… not because it's “obscure” or “not suggested often” (neither of which are true) but simply because I don't believe it should be rejected at all. It goes against my moderation practices.

Za-Chary

Paddle2See wrote:
This has been discussed in the moderators meeting and rejected. It's not considered offensive enough to completely censor.

However, feel free to report it if you find it offensive.

Ah, ha! Here is what I think now.

It is rejected for the Bad Word Detector to censor the phrase. However, @Paddle2See is inviting anyone to report the phrase if they find it offensive. Even if it's not being used in an insulting way, you can still use the Report button and we'll take a look at it.

Personally, I would discourage the use of this phrase, and might even go so far as to say it's not allowed. I have sent alerts to Scratchers who have used this phrase in comments (although, admittedly, it's not a huge offense), and may likely continue to do so.

In this case, I will not be adding it to the list, as I fear that would encourage Scratchers to use this phrase (“It's not rejected to censor it, so I can say it whenever I want.”).

Last edited by Za-Chary (Oct. 29, 2020 18:50:26)

mtech22

8.3 Show when users are online
This suggestion refers to some sort of indicator that lets you know if a user is currently online. The Scratch Team has discussed it and has decided that it is not something that can benefit Scratch as an educational platform. Between making projects, sharing projects, and viewing projects, an online indicator is not much help in these areas.

Would something like this that a user would have to turn manually on and off be rejected?

Super_Scratch_Bros20

mtech22 wrote:
8.3 Show when users are online
This suggestion refers to some sort of indicator that lets you know if a user is currently online. The Scratch Team has discussed it and has decided that it is not something that can benefit Scratch as an educational platform. Between making projects, sharing projects, and viewing projects, an online indicator is not much help in these areas.
Would something like this that a user would have to turn manually on and off be rejected?

I'm not @Za-Chary*, but I don't think so. I'd doubt the usefulness of it, however, as it is easily workaroundable in your About Me.

Za-Chary

mtech22 wrote:
8.3 Show when users are online
This suggestion refers to some sort of indicator that lets you know if a user is currently online. The Scratch Team has discussed it and has decided that it is not something that can benefit Scratch as an educational platform. Between making projects, sharing projects, and viewing projects, an online indicator is not much help in these areas.
Would something like this that a user would have to turn manually on and off be rejected?

Yep.

Discuss Scratch