misaPuding wrote:

its already really easy to securely and privately contact someone on scratch, but since ST tends to have ST moments, they won´t implement such unshared projects that multiple users have access to because then someone (like an extremely controlling and restrictive silly parent) might say that they “aLLoW pRivATe MeSsAGinG!!!1!!!1!” and spark outrage among other silly parents [

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Then this means this is impossible to prevent private messaging, so this idea should be rejected.

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Then this means this is impossible to prevent private messaging, so this idea should be rejected.

Comments.

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Then this means this is impossible to prevent private messaging, so this idea should be rejected.

Comments.

That isn’t simple, someone could see it before the comment gets deleted, it has to be shown on the owner’s profile the current collab and allow people to look inside (not able to edit any code though.) making private collabs that they don’t want people to see physically impossible.

Nova1789 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Then this means this is impossible to prevent private messaging, so this idea should be rejected.

Comments.

That isn’t simple, someone could see it before the comment gets deleted, it has to be shown on the owner’s profile the current collab and allow people to look inside (not able to edit any code though.) making private collabs that they don’t want people to see physically impossible.

Wait… what if we make it so that you can type only a restricted amount of words? That may prevent it…

LionCoder10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Then this means this is impossible to prevent private messaging, so this idea should be rejected.

Comments.

That isn’t simple, someone could see it before the comment gets deleted, it has to be shown on the owner’s profile the current collab and allow people to look inside (not able to edit any code though.) making private collabs that they don’t want people to see physically impossible.

Wait… what if we make it so that you can type only a restricted amount of words? That may prevent it…

Like the “chats” in Scratches popular online games? I think this could work

Nova1789 wrote:

(#567)

LionCoder10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

There is one con (idk if this was said yet because i just found this lol)
Private Messaging.

No, because the collaboration would be public to the owner's profile.

Ah, but the user may be underrated, or may try to mask the project. (Not to mention there could be inappropriate roleplay)
However, we could easily fix this by putting the collab under review each turn (this may be hard)

Disagree, a moderator should watch over a collab.

Not a very ideal solution, scratch is a non-profit organisiation, so making it so that staff would watch over the collab would be difficult since one staff would likley have to watch a hundred collabs at once.

why not just hire more staff?

I see what you mean, but more staff means more money, since you would expect to be paid in a job, so scratch may start charging you for simpler things. (Like being capped to uploading a few projects a day and paying to upload more, free trails, etc.)
Here's how the under review feature may or may not work:

User 1 takes their turn:: #8c33b8
User 1 inserts personal information or private message :: #8c33b8
User lets User 2 take their turn:: #8c33b8
Current state of project is put in review list for moderator to review:: #8c33b8
Moderator looks at project :: #8c33b8
Take Down Project:: #8c33b8
Potentially ban users depending on message:: #8c33b8
end [collab v] :: control

This scenario also has it's own issues due to the number of staff, so it may be difficult to moderate.

Reports already take 12 hours (give or take some extra time), with very limited projects moderators have to look through. With that system, moderators would have to look though hundreds, maybe even thousands, of projects daily. The waiting time could be pushed from 12 hours to months.

Then this means this is impossible to prevent private messaging, so this idea should be rejected.

Comments.

That isn’t simple, someone could see it before the comment gets deleted, it has to be shown on the owner’s profile the current collab and allow people to look inside (not able to edit any code though.) making private collabs that they don’t want people to see physically impossible.

Wait… what if we make it so that you can type only a restricted amount of words? That may prevent it…

Like the “chats” in Scratches popular online games? I think this could work

Hmm, but now I realised people could just use custom fonts (like evolutionist)

mumu245 wrote:

<snip>
You can already do this in other ways…the project would be required to be shared…

Blue_Moon2607 wrote:

• Risk of greif - If you don't know what it is, that means one person will sabotage on collaboration, ruining hard work on projects.
  

• Annoying requests - People are able to collaborate anyone on their project. However, when one random request is sent in their inbox asking to make a poorly-developed or overrated project, it could be annoying, since if you decline it, they have the option to request again, and again, and again.
  

Unrelated Ideas - If you invite someone to make a masterpiece project without disclosing ideas and instructions, sometimes they will put up random stuff that makes projects don't look good, or add a random engine/feature that is not needed for the project.

Nova1789 wrote:

Eh, we should reject this, remixing is just turn-base collaboration anyways.

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

Eh, we should reject this, remixing is just turn-base collaboration anyways.

You’re right.

Spaceandmoon1 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

Eh, we should reject this, remixing is just turn-base collaboration anyways.

You’re right.

I disagree but I do think that there could be a feature that makes it so people can not remix you're project as a toggle just like how you can turn off commenting on a certain project or keep commenting on but I don't think the Scratch team would do this.

Za-Chary wrote:

3.2 Disable remixing or censor minor remixes
One of the most important ideas of Scratch is the share aspect. Scratch is a website not only for displaying your work, but also for sharing it with others, and by posting your project on the Scratch website you agree to allow others to remix your work. You are not allowed to write “Do not remix this project” in the Notes and Credits of your project; you may get alerted for this, because it discourages remixing. This suggestion extends to the ability to require permission to remix a project, as you have already given permission to others to use your creations by sharing a project on Scratch; for more information, see this post.

A remix of a project is allowed on Scratch, even if the remix only contains minor changes (this includes recolors). However, when you remix a project, you should put in the Notes and Credits what you changed. If you see a project that contains no noticeable changes, please use the Report button on it so the Scratch Team can take a look at it. This suggestion extends to “extremely minor remixes,” such as a remix of a game that gives you 2 points per second instead of 1. As long as the user explains what they changed about the project and gives proper credit, this is okay.

LionCoder10 wrote:

Spaceandmoon1 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

Eh, we should reject this, remixing is just turn-base collaboration anyways.

You’re right.

I disagree but I do think that there could be a feature that makes it so people can not remix you're project as a toggle just like how you can turn off commenting on a certain project or keep commenting on but I don't think the Scratch team would do this.

Rejected:

Za-Chary wrote:

3.2 Disable remixing or censor minor remixes
One of the most important ideas of Scratch is the share aspect. Scratch is a website not only for displaying your work, but also for sharing it with others, and by posting your project on the Scratch website you agree to allow others to remix your work. You are not allowed to write “Do not remix this project” in the Notes and Credits of your project; you may get alerted for this, because it discourages remixing. This suggestion extends to the ability to require permission to remix a project, as you have already given permission to others to use your creations by sharing a project on Scratch; for more information, see this post.

A remix of a project is allowed on Scratch, even if the remix only contains minor changes (this includes recolors). However, when you remix a project, you should put in the Notes and Credits what you changed. If you see a project that contains no noticeable changes, please use the Report button on it so the Scratch Team can take a look at it. This suggestion extends to “extremely minor remixes,” such as a remix of a game that gives you 2 points per second instead of 1. As long as the user explains what they changed about the project and gives proper credit, this is okay.

Xzillox wrote:

can you guys snip your goshdarn posts

Nova1789 wrote:

(#570)

mumu245 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

(#567)
~snip~
Hmm, but now I realised people could just use custom fonts (like evolutionist)

You can already do this in other ways…the project would be required to be shared…

Eh, we should reject this, remixing is just turn-base collaboration anyways.

Xzillox wrote:

Xzillox wrote:

can you guys snip your goshdarn posts

bringing this down because people aren't listening

Elijah999999 wrote:

Blue_Moon2607 wrote:

• Risk of greif - If you don't know what it is, that means one person will sabotage on collaboration, ruining hard work on projects.
  

Yes, this is a big one. That is why there needs to be a way to access earlier to recover lost data.

• Annoying requests - People are able to collaborate anyone on their project. However, when one random request is sent in their inbox asking to make a poorly-developed or overrated project, it could be annoying, since if you decline it, they have the option to request again, and again, and again.
  

Yes, that would be annoying. So there should be an option to block invites.

Unrelated Ideas - If you invite someone to make a masterpiece project without disclosing ideas and instructions, sometimes they will put up random stuff that makes projects don't look good, or add a random engine/feature that is not needed for the project.

I feel like this would be mostly the fault of the host. The Scratch Team couldn't can't really prevent this.

Nova1789 wrote:

LionCoder10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

AidenTheRandomDude wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Nova1789 wrote:

-snip-