Fire-dragan wrote:

Maybe you could ask for an advertisement or instead of the homepage for showing projects and studios with designable images to be approved by the scratch team?

Per the description of “Project advertisements on the Scratch website” (7.8), the Scratch Team does not currently have the resources to do this.

RobotChickens wrote:

According to Za-Chary, it's okay if you're suggesting a solution.

Za-Chary wrote:

Please do not make any suggestion posts […] unless you are giving a solution to the problem that caused the feature to be rejected.

I have clarified in the OP that you should not make such suggestion posts here.

musicROCKS013 wrote:

Censoring the word “balls” was recently rejected.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/6389150/

This could possibly be an addition to 6.5

Thanks. I don't feel like I need to add it to to the list, not even in the list given in (6.5), because “balls” is not “controversial” in the sense that I do not regularly see users asking about whether or not they are allowed. The other words in (6.5) are frequently asked about whether or not they are allowed.

k0d3rrr wrote:

And I am The Master of Bumps and Off-Topic Posts…
The “Neutral Evil” of The Forum Participators…
The– Okay, we're getting off-topic here.

If you are aware that you are making off-topic posts, then please stop making off-topic posts in this thread. This also goes for the other Scratchers who have been making off-topic posts here. Not every reaction warrants a separate forum post (this is a general rule to keep in mind elsewhere on the forums, too).

k0d3rrr wrote:

Hey, I've been wondering. Is censoring projects with no coding suggested enough to be rejected?

I was going to say yes, but now that I think about it, I'll read @dertermenter's post.

dertermenter wrote:

This was suggested to be removed from the list before but @za-chary thought it was good enough to keep it for now. However, that was last year, and stuff like this can change.

It has been quoted here, here, and here (but is that quote even correctly used there?)

With only 3 times being suggested, and Account Settings being suggested at least 3 times[1][2][3 but was deemed not suggested enough to be added, so this should be removed from the list.

Thanks for the references. I'm still going to keep it on the list. Do note that this has been suggested more than 3 times; for example, the post that led to its rejection (seems like the original topic was deleted, but that doesn't mean it was never suggested, of course). The recent quotes you provided are also relatively recent, so it's clear that it's still being used. Whether or not they were being quoted “correctly” is somewhat irrelevant since all 3 of the instances in which it was quoted seemed to be helpful either to the OP or to the community. Also, I think that keeping it on the list at least helps others recognize that projects shared on the Scratch website don't need to have code in them. Finally, I find it a little unrealistic to compare this suggestion, where users were likely unaware that it was rejected, to another one in which a vocal subset of the Scratch community attempted to re-suggest something that they personally disagreed with.

(removed by moderator - please keep it on-topic)

Here's a few things that are bugging me about this *official* list of rejected suggestions.

First of all, how often is a ‘pop-up alert that encourages users to take a break from screen time’ suggested? And if so, is it necessary to keep it on this list?

Second, how often is ‘Scratch for video game consoles’ suggested? I can see why it's rejected, but is it suggested enough and frequently to count as a rejected suggestion?

Finally, how often are money blocks suggested? Yeah yeah yeah, “many users on the website are young and do not quite know how money works”. Aren't children taught this in primary/elementary school?

Just pointing out some of my own opinions.

k0d3rrr wrote:

First of all, how often is a ‘pop-up alert that encourages users to take a break from screen time’ suggested? And if so, is it necessary to keep it on this list?

I did provide times it had been mentioned here and @za-chary did say he could not decide so would keep it on the thread unless if anyone else had any input, and no one did.

Despite seeming obscure it has been quoted a lot, however, it has not been quoted for rejections at all this year but was 4 times last year. I agree it is one of the least used ones on this list, but I still believe it has been used enough and can be helpful in discussions (a lot of the times it was quoted was to point out if a suggestion could be rejected or drawing cons to a suggestion by the rejection reasoning). I think it should stay.

k0d3rrr wrote:

Second, how often is ‘Scratch for video game consoles’ suggested? I can see why it's rejected, but is it suggested enough and frequently to count as a rejected suggestion?

Been suggested a lot based on this search, even if a lot of people are using it when a suggestion is not rejected. I believe this should also stay.

k0d3rrr wrote:

Finally, how often are money blocks suggested? Yeah yeah yeah, “many users on the website are young and do not quite know how money works”. Aren't children taught this in primary/elementary school?

This one has always been a tricky one. Is it obviously rejected? I believe it is - from this list of “money blocks” being said, most are from people on this thread saying why it is a bad idea/good it's rejected etc. These comments are also unnecessary and spammy.

This was the conversation I and @za-chary had about it. To @Za-Chary - it has been suggested once more since our conversation on the matter, so has been suggested 8 times (see our previous conversation for other 7). What do you think?

(removed by moderator - please don't quote off-topic stuff - just report it)

=========== On topic section ===========

k0d3rrr wrote:

Finally, how often are money blocks suggested? Yeah yeah yeah, “many users on the website are young and do not quite know how money works”. Aren't children taught this in primary/elementary school?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whose bank account is that?
Who?
And also,
Angry A: YOU SCAMED ME!!! REPORTING.
ST: your project has been taken down, Scammer B
Still, maybe even more Angry A's bank account's owner still has no money

(Source: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/average-net-worth/) And the average wealth for a family is $746,820USD
A random 4 year old is not responsible enough for that amount of money/moolah/dough/usually green in physical form, invisible in digital form, stuff.

That is a lot of rejected scratch blocks.

dertermenter wrote:

k0d3rrr wrote:

First of all, how often is a ‘pop-up alert that encourages users to take a break from screen time’ suggested? And if so, is it necessary to keep it on this list?

Despite seeming obscure it has been quoted a lot, however, it has not been quoted for rejections at all this year but was 4 times last year. I agree it is one of the least used ones on this list, but I still believe it has been used enough and can be helpful in discussions (a lot of the times it was quoted was to point out if a suggestion could be rejected or drawing cons to a suggestion by the rejection reasoning). I think it should stay.

i think @dertermenter has solid logic here. it does seem like one of the more obscure suggestions, but evidently it's being quoted, so it may as well stay on the list.

dertermenter wrote:

k0d3rrr wrote:

Second, how often is ‘Scratch for video game consoles’ suggested? I can see why it's rejected, but is it suggested enough and frequently to count as a rejected suggestion?

Been suggested a lot based on this search, even if a lot of people are using it when a suggestion is not rejected. I believe this should also stay.

yeah, this one is not as obscure as the previous one. i reasonably think lots of users would want to see scratch on video game consoles, so it's worth keeping this one on the list.

dertermenter wrote:

k0d3rrr wrote:

Finally, how often are money blocks suggested? Yeah yeah yeah, “many users on the website are young and do not quite know how money works”. Aren't children taught this in primary/elementary school?

This was the conversation I and @za-chary had about it. To @Za-Chary - it has been suggested once more since our conversation on the matter, so has been suggested 8 times (see our previous conversation for other 7). What do you think?

since “money blocks” seems like one of the more controversial entries in this list (as in, its inclusion in the list is controversial), i did some digging to see what previous rejected list owners did. the suggestion seems to have been around in lists for a long time. it was in @customhacker's list under “scratch money.” @jvvg did not have it in his list. but it was also in @lionheart70's list under “digital currency and money blocks.” this makes me think that i could theoretically merge “digital currency” with “money blocks,” possibly moving over my description for money blocks, or at the very least including @paddle2see's post in the description. but “digital currency” is already merged with “scratch achievements.” i thought the two were pretty similar, but in retrospect maybe they're not. i really can't tell.

the main benefit of digital currency, from what i know, is to buy new features. the main benefit of scratch achievements is to show off. the main benefit of money blocks is to send money to other scratchers.

i think maybe digital currency and money blocks could be merged together (after all, real money could be considered a form of digital currency), and scratch achievements could be made separately from digital currency. i think that makes sense to me, so i'm willing to try it (in fact, i kind of really want to try it), unless there are strong objections. i would remove the existing “money blocks” entry and merge the existing “digital currency” entry to include a description of money blocks. digital currency would stay under 8.7. scratch achievements would probably be 8.8 (due to there being some similarity), moving the subsequent entries to 8.9 and 8.10. this might cut down on the “bruh who would even want money blocks” spam, but that honestly isn't a priority for me.

thoughts?

Za-Chary wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

k0d3rrr wrote:

First of all, how often is a ‘pop-up alert that encourages users to take a break from screen time’ suggested? And if so, is it necessary to keep it on this list?

Despite seeming obscure it has been quoted a lot, however, it has not been quoted for rejections at all this year but was 4 times last year. I agree it is one of the least used ones on this list, but I still believe it has been used enough and can be helpful in discussions (a lot of the times it was quoted was to point out if a suggestion could be rejected or drawing cons to a suggestion by the rejection reasoning). I think it should stay.

i think @dertermenter has solid logic here. it does seem like one of the more obscure suggestions, but evidently it's being quoted, so it may as well stay on the list.

yes. *slow hand clapping*

Za-Chary wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

k0d3rrr wrote:

Second, how often is ‘Scratch for video game consoles’ suggested? I can see why it's rejected, but is it suggested enough and frequently to count as a rejected suggestion?

Been suggested a lot based on this search, even if a lot of people are using it when a suggestion is not rejected. I believe this should also stay.

yeah, this one is not as obscure as the previous one. i reasonably think lots of users would want to see scratch on video game consoles, so it's worth keeping this one on the list.

note that i made that post when i wasn't thinking clearly enough to see the reasoning in that rejected suggestion. oh, why do i think i'm right when i'm not?

Za-Chary wrote:

-lowercase snip-

i actually was going to suggest at one point that you merge the two rejected suggestions together! it's crazy how these coincidences keep happening…

anyways, i hope you do merge the suggestions, so there aren't any more of those boring suggestions saying “plzzzz st consider my suggestion <emoji spam>”. (no offence to those suggestions, by the way.)

Za-Chary wrote:

thoughts?

I like this idea. Digital currency and money blocks seem very similar and I think it would be better if they were merged and Scratch achievements be put into a separate part as they are not that similar to digital currency. Also, it could finally stop the money block spam.
I made a quote for it. Thoughts?

8.7 Digital currency or Scratch achievements
Some form of digital currency which allows you to “buy” Scratch features (with real or fake money) would not really benefit the educational value of Scratch; after all, there is not really anything that you can buy. While there could be features that are only unlockable via digital currency, this does not really contribute to Scratch's purpose of being a programming language available for everyone. However, you can make digital currency in your own projects, if you like.

This also extends to the suggestion of adding money blocks. Many users on Scratch are young and don't understand how money works with most not even having a credit card account. Users could make projects ordering users to pay large amounts of money or trick users into giving them loads of money. Overall, money features add further complexity to the website and would limit users' access, without any clear benefit towards the educational value.

A very good detailed analysis for why digital currency should not be on Scratch can be found on this post.

This is the one I made (well, copied over from your description) for Scratch achievements:

8.8 Money blocks
Some users have suggested Scratch achievements such as “Created 50 projects” with the idea that this would give users motivation to keep using Scratch. However, this sort of idea does not really fit in with the purpose of Scratch. Some users may use their achievements to determine that they are “better” than other users. However, you are allowed to make achievements in your own games, if you like.

Hey I noticed the one about not being able to post political views. Is this still true? I mean I noticed conversations about abortion and views on abortion were removed in TFH. Also multiple profiles I've seen about being pro-life or pro-choice were removed. I talked with a user about it and he said it was because it was controversial. But all political views are too, so why is this a rejected suggestion, because at least part of it is being enforced on the site.

Sliverus wrote:

Hey I noticed the one about not being able to post political views. Is this still true? I mean I noticed conversations about abortion and views on abortion were removed in TFH. Also multiple profiles I've seen about being pro-life or pro-choice were removed. I talked with a user about it and he said it was because it was controversial. But all political views are too, so why is this a rejected suggestion, because at least part of it is being enforced on the site.

I believe that because it’s a topic that most 8 year olds wouldn’t understand and since most of scratch is male they don’t want people taking sides on this who don’t know what their talking about and just want to seem cool

Sliverus wrote:

(#6454)
Hey I noticed the one about not being able to post political views. Is this still true? I mean I noticed conversations about abortion and views on abortion were removed in TFH. Also multiple profiles I've seen about being pro-life or pro-choice were removed. I talked with a user about it and he said it was because it was controversial. But all political views are too, so why is this a rejected suggestion, because at least part of it is being enforced on the site.

Yes, it is still rejected to stop people from posting political views, but talking about abortion particularly is not allowed as the Scratch Team learnt that it led to inappropriate discussions. (source)

Per recent feedback, I have removed “Money blocks” (1.4) and merged it together with “Digital currency” (8.7) and separated “Scratch achievements” (now 8.8). I renumbered the rest of the list in apple-pie order for the sake of readability. Thanks @dertermenter for the quotes — I ended up just making my own quotes for them, but it turns out that they were similar to yours anyway.

Sliverus wrote:

Hey I noticed the one about not being able to post political views. Is this still true? I mean I noticed conversations about abortion and views on abortion were removed in TFH. Also multiple profiles I've seen about being pro-life or pro-choice were removed. I talked with a user about it and he said it was because it was controversial. But all political views are too, so why is this a rejected suggestion, because at least part of it is being enforced on the site.

The source was given by @dertermenter above, but to clarify: the Scratch Team has often seen that discussion about abortion leads to disrespectful comments, inappropriate language, and misinformation on the subject. Hence all discussion about abortion is banned on Scratch. This includes expressing your stance on the issue. Not all political topics are as inappropriate as abortion — for instance, merely discussing who the next president should be, while controversial, is not inappropriate in nature. Many conversations can be had about the next president without breaking the Community Guidelines. The same cannot be said about abortion — most discussion about abortion is inherently inappropriate for Scratch, even if the discussion remains respectful.

Huh? Why scratch want me here?

minikiwigeek2 wrote:

(#6461)
looks like this is rejected.

Looking on an ocular search I don't think it has been suggested before, so I don't think it should go on this list.

dertermenter wrote:

minikiwigeek2 wrote:

(#6461)
looks like this is rejected.

Looking on an ocular search I don't think it has been suggested before, so I don't think it should go on this list.

Agreed. I was tempted to add it to the list, because I've seen this sort of mindset before from Scratchers who are concerned that blocking users for mentioning suicide would not be good for them. They have good-apple intentions. But, as stated in that topic, it's probably best not to add more mentions of suicide here.

Za-Chary wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

minikiwigeek2 wrote:

(#6461)
looks like this is rejected.

Looking on an ocular search I don't think it has been suggested before, so I don't think it should go on this list.

Agreed. I was tempted to add it to the list, because I've seen this sort of mindset before from Scratchers who are concerned that blocking users for mentioning suicide would not be good for them. They have good-apple intentions. But, as stated in that topic, it's probably best not to add more mentions of suicide here.

Then don't make the description of the rejected suggestion mentioning a lot about depression or suicide.

Maybe title it:

7.13 Don't block people for making references to mental health issues

Or for simplicity:

7.13 Don't block people for referencing mental health issues

Argue with me if you have to, but there needs to be a way to both keep the description appropriate for Scratch, and easy to read and understand.

k0d3rrr wrote:

Then don't make the description of the rejected suggestion mentioning a lot about depression or suicide.

“Mental health issues” can lie on the same plane as “suicide.” We're mainly comparing apples to apples here; a Scratcher could potentially share a project about their “mental health issues” and get blocked from it, even if neither suicide nor self-harm are explicitly mentioned. Moreover, if I added this to the list, the post that would be linked explicitly mentions suicide, so I don't think there's any strong benefit over the choice of wording, considering that that post would be shared whenever this is suggested again.

But regardless, I've already decided that I'm not adding this to the list at the moment, so there's no need for further discussion about it.