An example:
I've seen ST ban people for being collab accounts when they are not.

So, ST please check before doing ST actions

how are you supposed to prove that an account is a collab account?

MythosLore wrote:

how are you supposed to prove that an account is a collab account?

idk, that's just one time i saw ST take something down without proof.

It's not like the ST would just ask them: “Hey are you a collab account?” and get a real answer. If they saw that the ST was asking them something, they would know that they are in the wrong and might lie.

If the Scratch Team truly required proof beyond a reasonable doubt before taking any admin actions, they would basically not be able to take down anything in any reasonable amount of time. It's a tough balance between not unfairly taking things down and keeping the site safe, and ultimately the consequences of not taking down bad content are a lot worse than the consequences for accidentally taking something down that didn't need to be taken down. Also, there is a way to appeal these things. But in reality, false positives are a lot less common than users think due to the fact that users have a tendency to lie about why they were banned to get sympathy and people are a lot less likely to complain about getting banned fairly vs. unfairly, so fair bans are a lot less visible.

How would they prove that an account is a collab account? Most other take downs would be justified, such as inappropriate content, but a collab account can't be proven as if they use logins based off of an IP address, someone could be using an VPN which is allowed, but it could also be multiple people from different areas logging on.

jvvg wrote:

If the Scratch Team truly required proof beyond a reasonable doubt before taking any admin actions, they would basically not be able to take down anything in any reasonable amount of time. It's a tough balance between not unfairly taking things down and keeping the site safe, and ultimately the consequences of not taking down bad content are a lot worse than the consequences for accidentally taking something down that didn't need to be taken down. Also, there is a way to appeal these things. But in reality, false positives are a lot less common than users think due to the fact that users have a tendency to lie about why they were banned to get sympathy and people are a lot less likely to complain about getting banned fairly vs. unfairly, so fair bans are a lot less visible.

only a limited amount of ST actions require proof

LP372 wrote:

only a limited amount of ST actions require proof

Even then, requiring “proof” (which by the way you describe it I am interpreting to mean “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”) for any action would majorly hinder their ability to keep the site safe. No matter how they do it, it won't be perfect, but they need to stay more on the side of keeping the site safe even if it means the occasional false positive.

And again, in my previous post, I explained why false bans are a lot less common than you probably think they are.

LP372 wrote:

jvvg wrote:

If the Scratch Team truly required proof beyond a reasonable doubt before taking any admin actions, they would basically not be able to take down anything in any reasonable amount of time. It's a tough balance between not unfairly taking things down and keeping the site safe, and ultimately the consequences of not taking down bad content are a lot worse than the consequences for accidentally taking something down that didn't need to be taken down. Also, there is a way to appeal these things. But in reality, false positives are a lot less common than users think due to the fact that users have a tendency to lie about why they were banned to get sympathy and people are a lot less likely to complain about getting banned fairly vs. unfairly, so fair bans are a lot less visible.

only a limited amount of ST actions require proof

One of those is a ban, which is incredibly important in maintaining how kid-friendly the website is. Adding on to jvvg's post, if they needed proof to ban someone, barely anyone would get banned and the site would be unsafe.

False bans aren’t a big deal, one can always appeal them.

When I was blocked, it was partially false, and partially fair, not gonna go into the details, but I apologized what for what wrong I actually did and explained the things that scratch misunderstood, so after 3 months or so I was unblocked because scratch accepted my appeal.

So if someone who actually made a mistake can be unblocked, fully falsely blocked people certainly can.

Also, no I’m not a hazard to the scratch community, I’ve never broke cg and never will since I was unblocked

Not that this is your specific case, but if a Scratcher says “This is a shared account between 3 people” even if it actually isn't, then how is the Scratch Team to prove whether or not it is a shared account?

Also, let's consider the case where the account actually is a collab account. What sort of proof are you looking for? Is the Scratch Team supposed to share this proof with someone?

I know it doesn't fit with your example, but since you said “anything”, I think it's worth bringing up that this is rejected for projects I believe:

3.5 Remove the automatic project censoring system
The automatic project censoring system, with the accompanying temporary account block, is extremely useful to ensure that the community stays safe. Without this system, users who make inappropriate projects could keep making them without immediate consequence if a moderator is not online at the time. That would just expose more people to inappropriate content. While the Scratch Team is open to making improvements to this system, neither removing the automatic project censor nor removing the automatic temporary account block are the solutions.

An account wouldn't be blocked as a shared account without some kind of evidence of some kind. In the majority of cases, I expect, the account is correctly blocked. In the event of an error, then the blocked account has the opportunity to appeal the block and have it removed. So the system is working correctly.

dertermenter wrote:

I know it doesn't fit with your example, but since you said “anything”, I think it's worth bringing up that this is rejected for projects I believe:

3.5 Remove the automatic project censoring system
The automatic project censoring system, with the accompanying temporary account block, is extremely useful to ensure that the community stays safe. Without this system, users who make inappropriate projects could keep making them without immediate consequence if a moderator is not online at the time. That would just expose more people to inappropriate content. While the Scratch Team is open to making improvements to this system, neither removing the automatic project censor nor removing the automatic temporary account block are the solutions.

no, that's the automatic one