I like this idea, and I do support it, because it would be much easier to collab, that having to give everyone in the collab a source , and then they all bring back their parts… That's less complicated than this. Although that doesn't prevent the Owner from DMing the Editors, or the Owner turning on the editor and vandalising their contributions.

Edit: King of Page 16! Give me a crown and some monster munch crisps! (That's an ORDER from your king!) Just kidding…

major support. I really think that collaborating on scratch projects increases creativity and cooperation skills, and plus, you know the old saying.

some random dude wrote:

Two heads are better than one.

the only problem I have with this is the same with the post above. one guy could just entirely destroy the project. maybe there could be a “Suggesting Mode” like in Google Docs?

Is this rejected?

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Is this rejected?

did you read the op

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Is this rejected?

Why isn't it closed then?

Rejected and workaround dupe as well

Swampert11 wrote:

Blaze349 wrote:

Bump!

Wait at least a few days before bumping.

you mean 24 hours?

Read the op guys its a solution

MyScratchedAccount wrote:

Rejected and workaround dupe as well

Link if its a dupe

not rejected

read the op

Support.

support if has restrictions like google docs

project suggestor: only can suggest on a moderated chat box below the stage that can pop up

project viewer: can only view the project

project editor: can edit the project and suggest

project creator: the mod of the project, can change restrictions, edit projects, suggest stuff, and view the project

restricted project: only available for usernames that the creator allows

SpyLion wrote:

Support.

Why do you support?

Bump

Support for obvious reasons

Scratch collaboration idea:

This feature would allow a user to invite certain other scratchers to edit the project, under the condition that the project is shared.

This would allow better collaboration in scratch, with the public still being able to see what's in projects. A limit of 10 collaborators, for example, could be put in place, and only the project host can grant collaboration status. All collaborators (with links to their profiles) would be listed, to let the public know that multiple scratchers are working on the project.

Certain features which would likely exist for safety reasons:

• Users would likely be told (upon enabling collaboration) that they should make sure they trust all the collaborators.
• A list of project edits (along with a brief overview of what was done in the edit) would likely be saved (similar to cloud variables) so that collaborators could not steal the entire project and wipe the original collab to just say they did it all themselves.
• The project must be shared for this feature.
• The “project host” could “lock” certain parts of the project, such as certain sprites, the Notes & Credits, the project title, or the Instructions, so that only they can edit them and not the collaborators.
• Only the “project host” would be allowed to delete and moderate comments, this feature would stay the same.
• Any user would be allowed to remove themself as a collaborator at any time, this feature would work similarly to studio curators.
• Only one collaborator would be allowed to work on the project at a time, so as to not have any double-saving issues. An “automatic time-out” would have to be put in place, so if one person works on the project but then leaves it open in their browser, no-one else would be allowed to work on it until
they have timed out due to inactivity.

This limit would likely be about 5 minutes or so, after which the project would automatically save and be open for other collaborators to edit. Thus if they have to go do something else, other collaborators can still work on te project without having any weird double-saving glitches where two people are working on it at once and there's no real way for the project to merge changes.





Resolved issues:


• The community would be able to see everything that's going on and report the project if necessary.
• It allows for a nice collaboration feature which the community would love.
• It supports collaboration in the scratch community without the hassle of over-remixing.
• It reduces the risk of temporarily sharing personal information through a live chat system within the project.
• There is no risk of users getting annoyed over two people editing at the same time and overall losing data due to the “one-user” feature.
• It allows for a slightly more official and built-in crediting system within scratch, so users will be credited properly.
• Better debugging would become a thing. Instead of having someone smarter then you just try to explain, you could invite them to collaborate and help visually explain in your project. (Just make sure you trust them first!)
• The risk of project theft would be low because of the list of project edits.
• This form of collaboration would not be as hard as live project editing to create, as well as being a lot safer for the scratch community.

Any other issues I haven't thought of?

I think there might be issues with this:

OP wrote:

What if a proposed change contains inappropriate content?
Firstly, the original project owner could check and test the new changes, to make sure nothing was inappropriate. Second, there could be a “Report Changes” button. There would also be a warning that if a change applied contains inappropriate content, the original owner's project would be reported.

Proposed changes would also have to be public.

Basically what you're looking for is a version control system like Git.

Is this rejected?

There could also be a version history thingy, so you can still make changes and publish them, but also restore previous versions, like Docs

Yeah although that would take a lot of server space storing collabs so just looking at the code would be a better solution to prevent theft.

(Edit for clarity)

As in it would just let you run the project as it was in that version.