There could be simple explanations that the mod didn't take into account.

Can you give a few examples of where this has been done?

I think the Scratch Team has the authority to reject anything they want — they made this website, after all. If a moderator misinterprets the suggestion, then the OP should have made the suggestion more clear. The moderators know trash from apple butter, so to speak, and if a suggestion is so simple and clearly rejected, then no discussion is required.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#2)
Can you give a few examples of where this has been done?

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/619483/?page=1#post-6473275 Explanation:
1.

portalpower wrote:

The entire reason swearing is banned is so kids don't learn the swear words, meaning if you don't say the actual word, there's no harm.

2.

portalpower wrote:

If it's to prevent inappropriate context, the comments would be reportable one way or another.

What I'm trying to say is that censoring stuff doesn't give people a free pass from the CGs, but they shouldn't get banned for censoring things in ways that are appropriate. I couldn't find any more, sorry.

Za-Chary wrote:

I think the Scratch Team has the authority to reject anything they want — they made this website, after all.

That doesn't mean they should, they're just rejecting valid suggestions because they didn't consider something.

Za-Chary wrote:

If a moderator misinterprets the suggestion, then the OP should have made the suggestion more clear.

I think in that case, you can report the topic to be reponed and post an explanation. Also, suggestions shouldn't be rejected because of their wording.

Za-Chary wrote:

The moderators know trash from apple butter, so to speak, and if a suggestion is so simple and clearly rejected, then no discussion is required.

idk what you're trying to say here.

portalpower wrote:

The entire reason swearing is banned is so kids don't learn the swear words, meaning if you don't say the actual word, there's no harm.

If “apple” was a bad word, then typing *pple would be pretty close enough. It's along the lines of misspelling a bad word, which also shouldn't be allowed. That is, “aple” and “appl” should not be allowed either. Someone who sees *pple could look it up and Google could easily autofill in the rest. Furthermore, those who see asterisks in random words would automatically know that they're swear words.

portalpower wrote:

If it's to prevent inappropriate context, the comments would be reportable one way or another. What I'm trying to say is that censoring stuff doesn't give people a free pass from the CGs, but they shouldn't get banned for censoring things in ways that are appropriate. I couldn't find any more, sorry.

I think “appropriate censoring” would be along the lines of replacing “lmao” with “lol,” for instance. (I know “lmao” is not that offensive, but I'm just using it as an example to avoid using more offensive words.) Replacing “lmao” with **** doesn't really make it any more appropriate, and in fact makes it more suggestive — those asterisks could mean anything, including words which are even more offensive. It's not easy to tell what they're supposed to be. Another way to censor inappropriate words is to just not use them in the first place. So I don't think replacing letters with asterisks is a completely appropriate way of censoring words.

portalpower wrote:

That doesn't mean they should, they're just rejecting valid suggestions because they didn't consider something.

I'll still disagree with this one. The Scratch Team, as the creators/maintainers of the Scratch website, have the authority to decide how they want the website to operate.

portalpower wrote:

I think in that case, you can report the topic to be reponed and post an explanation.

If it's obvious that the moderator closed it thinking that it was a completely different suggestion, you can probably already do this. I don't think your linked example counts, though — it's pretty clear what the suggestion is, and I think @Paddle2See knew what you were suggesting — and rejected it.

portalpower wrote:

Also, suggestions shouldn't be rejected because of their wording.

I don't think they are. But if someone suggests “Private messaging for studios,” a moderator will probably close that because private messaging is rejected. On the other hand, if the OP wanted something more along the lines of “Studios where only specific Scratchers can publicly comment in them,” then that might not be rejected, and it is worded more clearly than “Private messaging for studios.” It's completely reasonable for someone to think that, in the former case, they're just suggesting private messaging. A certain amount of careful wording is required for any suggestion you make.

portalpower wrote:

idk what you're trying to say here.

Try this: “The moderators are not ignorant, and if a suggestion is so simple and clearly rejected, then no discussion is required.”

I think another point about your earlier suggestion in particular is that it seems to discourage constructive and respectful commenting. If Scratchers were allowed to censor swear words, then they may do that instead of commenting in a friendly manner. I would rather see this comment on one of my projects:

This platformer is pretty good, but it's very glitchy. Have you tried asking for fixes in the Help with Scripts forum?

than this:

This platformer is **** you should fix it by going to Help with Scripts

Furthermore, there is no doubt that Scratchers would use this sort of censoring mechanic to try to be smart with the Scratch Team: “When I said ‘This platformer is ****,’ I was censoring the word ‘good’! Why would I get an alert for saying the word ‘good’?”

Support! Maybe they could continue the suggestion a bit by asking for further information or helping with the suggestion themself!

A lot of that post is about the other suggestion, proving that there's more discussion to be had. I'm not going to respond to those points because they're a bit off topic but I'll just say a decent amount of the stuff brought up there was mentioned in the OP of that topic.

Za-Chary wrote:

(#4)

portalpower wrote:

That doesn't mean they should, they're just rejecting valid suggestions because they didn't consider something.

I'll still disagree with this one. The Scratch Team, as the creators/maintainers of the Scratch website, have the authority to decide how they want the website to operate.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should. For example, the mods can ban people for no reason if they want but they shouldn't so they don't. Same thing applies here.

Za-Chary wrote:

portalpower wrote:

Also, suggestions shouldn't be rejected because of their wording.

I don't think they are. But if someone suggests “Private messaging for studios,” a moderator will probably close that because private messaging is rejected. On the other hand, if the OP wanted something more along the lines of “Studios where only specific Scratchers can publicly comment in them,” then that might not be rejected, and it is worded more clearly than “Private messaging for studios.” It's completely reasonable for someone to think that, in the former case, they're just suggesting private messaging. A certain amount of careful wording is required for any suggestion you make.

In that case, the OP can just report to reopen for an explanation.

Za-Chary wrote:

portalpower wrote:

idk what you're trying to say here.

Try this: “The moderators are not ignorant, and if a suggestion is so simple and clearly rejected, then no discussion is required.”

If it's that simple, someone will probably bring up the reason before the mod but okay.

portalpower wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

portalpower wrote:

idk what you're trying to say here.

Try this: “The moderators are not ignorant, and if a suggestion is so simple and clearly rejected, then no discussion is required.”

If it's that simple, someone will probably bring up the reason before the mod but okay.

Probably because that reason is so blitheringly obvious there absolutely was no reason to bring it up.

If you want a topic reopened, then use the Report button and give a good reason why it should be reopened. No sense making more topics.

portalpower wrote:

The entire reason swearing is banned is so kids don't learn the swear words, meaning if you don't say the actual word, there's no harm.

I disagree with this statement. Most kids probably know the common swear words. The reason to censor them is because they are impolite, offensive to some, and often lead to hostile conversation.

Paddle2See wrote:

If you want a topic reopened, then use the Report button and give a good reason why it should be reopened. No sense making more topics.

portalpower wrote:

The entire reason swearing is banned is so kids don't learn the swear words, meaning if you don't say the actual word, there's no harm.

I disagree with this statement. Most kids probably know the common swear words. The reason to censor them is because they are impolite, offensive to some, and often lead to hostile conversation.

So wait, is this rejected? I think it looks like it is at least opposed by ST, but it's also open so I'll try not to judge a book by its cover.

Of course this may seem obvious, but what if a troll (the recent one)’s suggestions about banning certain users never got dustbinned, or even rejected because they didn’t have enough discussion. There should be more exceptions to reject suggestions than this.

musicROCKS013 wrote:

Of course this may seem obvious, but what if a troll (the recent one)’s suggestions about banning certain users never got dustbinned, or even rejected because they didn’t have enough discussion. There should be more exceptions to reject suggestions than this.

I think the bottom line is ST owns the site and if something isn't ok in their book then they have every right to reject it.

musicROCKS013 wrote:

(#10)
Of course this may seem obvious, but what if a troll (the recent one)’s suggestions about banning certain users never got dustbinned, or even rejected because they didn’t have enough discussion. There should be more exceptions to reject suggestions than this.

When did I bring up dustbinning?

Sliverus wrote:

(#9)
So wait, is this rejected? I think it looks like it is at least opposed by ST, but it's also open so I'll try not to judge a book by its cover.

No, that post isn't even about this suggestion.

Anyway, I'm gonna try and get the other topic reopened now so take discussion about that over there.

Maybe it is because your suggestion didn't need discussing for it to be rejected; “allow people to swear if they cover up part of the word” doesn't exactly sound like something that would need discussing before rejecting