By the way, why censor Itinerary?

Looky1173 wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

It’s probably because you can still get information from the Google form.

I've just said that it's closed. If you click on the link inviting you to share the form with your friends you will see that you can no longer submit responses.

I know that. I’m just saying

Okay, so what could I do now? Contact Us?

Yes

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Support!

Looky1173 wrote:

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Support!

I’ll add it to my siggy

I am going to send a message through Contact Us, and I will share updates here or on my profile.

Looky1173 wrote:

I am going to send a message through Contact Us, and I share updates here or on my profile.

Ok best wishes

Looky1173 wrote:

By the way, why censor Itinerary?

I think it's mostly because the ST also doesn't like user-moderated websites, where a single scratch user moderates the whole thing. No matter how well it's moderated

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

By the way, why censor Itinerary?

I think it's mostly because the ST also doesn't like user-moderated websites, where a single scratch user moderates the whole thing. No matter how well it's moderated

Like meower?

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Like meower?

exactly.

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

By the way, why censor Itinerary?

I think it's mostly because the ST also doesn't like user-moderated websites, where a single scratch user moderates the whole thing. No matter how well it's moderated

Well why is Ocular allowed then? If the ST wants to be able to moderate Itinerary as well I would be happy to give them admin access but the alert doesn't really explain their reasoning…

Looky1173 wrote:

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

By the way, why censor Itinerary?

I think it's mostly because the ST also doesn't like user-moderated websites, where a single scratch user moderates the whole thing. No matter how well it's moderated

Well why is Ocular allowed then? If the ST wants to be able to moderate Itinerary as well I would be happy to give them admin access but the alert doesn't really explain their reasoning…

I dunno. But if I was a ST member I’d put the project back up. Also ST members have used ocular and set statuses before.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

By the way, why censor Itinerary?

I think it's mostly because the ST also doesn't like user-moderated websites, where a single scratch user moderates the whole thing. No matter how well it's moderated

Well why is Ocular allowed then? If the ST wants to be able to moderate Itinerary as well I would be happy to give them admin access but the alert doesn't really explain their reasoning…

I dunno. But if I was a ST member I’d put the project back up. Also ST members have used ocular and set statuses before.

Classic case of cherry picking.

Steve0Greatness wrote:

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

By the way, why censor Itinerary?

I think it's mostly because the ST also doesn't like user-moderated websites, where a single scratch user moderates the whole thing. No matter how well it's moderated

Well why is Ocular allowed then? If the ST wants to be able to moderate Itinerary as well I would be happy to give them admin access but the alert doesn't really explain their reasoning…

I dunno. But if I was a ST member I’d put the project back up. Also ST members have used ocular and set statuses before.

Classic case of cherry picking.

But most importantly. Without this there is no ocular. (I’m a moron so I accidentally removed my account)

The ST should really give more context on alerts. Simply tossing out a template does not help anything.

Here is the message that I've just sent through Contact Us:

Scratch Auth and Itinerary censure

Dear Scratch Team,

I have received alerts that Scratch Auth and Itinerary were censured, including the Scratch Auth project (https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/676911023/). The forum topic for Scratch Auth (https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/597434/) was dustbinned as well.

Scratch Auth is not a link shortener, nor a browser extension, nor does it promote userscripts, nor does it lead to inappropriate material, nor does it reveal personal information or social media accounts, nor does it have unmoderated chat features. I have made a forum topic to clarify the workings of Scratch Auth and Itinerary: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/609816/

However, several users have drawn my attention to the Google Form that was previously featured on the Scratch Auth website. It was used to get the opinion of the community on whether they would like me to develop Itinerary (https://itinerary.eu.org) further, a site that could be used to create fun Scratch game jams. I understand that Google Forms could potentially lead to private messaging and thus I have taken the form down. To prove that I have NOT gathered any personal information, please refer to the data collected by the form: redacted

I apologise for publishing the form and I promise I will not do such things in the future. If the form was the reasoning behind censoring Scratch Auth, then I ask the Team to revert their actions because I have removed it. Thousands of Scratchers as well as some independent Scratch services depend on Scratch Auth, and censoring it restricts them. If the issue was not related to the form, please provide an explanation because the alerts I received did not help me identify the problem.

Finally, I would like to inquire about why Itinerary was censured as well. Itinerary purposefully has a friendly look, and it is strictly moderated. To create a game jam, a Scratcher would have to ask me on my profile. Also, I constantly review each jam for inappropriate descriptions and images. Thus far, I have found none.

Thank you for processing my message.

Have you used Contact Us yet?
(To self): What a stupid question! The answer's obvious!

Looky1173 wrote:

Dear Scratch Team, please provide a real explanation as to why You censored the Scratch Auth project, deleted the forum topic, and removed all links leading to Scratch Auth - and even to Itinerary - from the Scratch website!

THE WHAT?! the DELETED that entire topic? honestly that had 0 things not suitable for scratch. its a shame they decided to to delete it instead of warning you.

Looky1173 wrote:

but these alerts drawn from Your templates do not help me.

This is all. This is everything. The past 5 or so alerts I've received all contain this template that doesn't even show where I've done a mistake in following the rules, the ST basically is moderating the site in a way, that destructively removes all content they assume is not safe. We understand that safety of users is the #1 priority, but that shouldnt come at the cost of not explaining the reason why someone's hardwork is just removed off the scratch website, even when it doesn't contain content that isn't suitable for 8 year olds.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Also ST members have used ocular and set statuses before.

true, it seems like they're becoming slightly biased now. a few months ago they totally allowed github links and javascript code snippets, but now they don't like both, either because one random person used it to do something bad or they just dont like scratchers moving on to advanced things.

PyraEthan12 wrote:

Also ST members have used ocular and set statuses before.

Which ones? A few ST members' ocular statuses were not set by themselves and were carryovers from shefwerld back when statuses were set as jokes.

Sorry if there is some confusion. Please use the Contact Us button at the bottom of every page if you have a question about a Scratch Team action. Here is the link to it too http://scratch.mit.edu/contact-us/