Mesupports. o7

Support! But could this be abused?

Example:
User1 makes a project.
User2 makes a project a long time afterwards.
User1 gets his project mass reported.
User1 replaces the contents of his project with the contents of user2’s project.
User1’s project gets uncensored, and now it seems like user2 copied off of user1.

SpyCoderX wrote:

Support! But could this be abused?

Example:
User1 makes a project.
User2 makes a project a long time afterwards.
User1 gets his project mass reported.
User1 replaces the contents of his project with the contents of user2’s project.
User1’s project gets uncensored, and now it seems like user2 copied off of user1.

I'm new to this topic, and I support it. However, SpyCoder does have a good point.

SpyCoderX wrote:

(#125)
Support! But could this be abused?

Example:
User1 makes a project.
User2 makes a project a long time afterwards.
User1 gets his project mass reported.
User1 replaces the contents of his project with the contents of user2’s project.
User1’s project gets uncensored, and now it seems like user2 copied off of user1.

Do you realise that this same exploit can be abused with the current system? Instead of having the project mass reported they can just copy and paste without un-sharing

would this only be if its taken down, or also if its unshared?

Support. If a project is unshared or mass reported, it's share date shouldn't be changed.

Quantum1993 wrote:

Support. If a project is unshared or mass reported, it's share date shouldn't be changed.

Yea, it should apply to unshared too, I have seen confusion with this on projects:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/104/
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/113321949/

sharkode wrote:

-snip-

Then that is another problem that needs to be solved lol. Not in this topic though. Perhaps a new suggestion like a credits page and code that knows who made it?

Support! There needs to be parental controls for children under age 13. Or else, Scratch wouldn't be that safe for kids

medians wrote:

Quantum1993 wrote:

Support. If a project is unshared or mass reported, it's share date shouldn't be changed.

Yea, it should apply to unshared too, I have seen confusion with this on projects:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/104/
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/113321949/

Exactly, it's kinda annoying

NateCoder2021 wrote:

Support! There needs to be parental controls for children under age 13. Or else, Scratch wouldn't be that safe for kids

Not to be mean or anything, but how does this relate to making projects that are taken down from mass-reporting keep their original share date?

SpyCoderX wrote:

NateCoder2021 wrote:

Support! There needs to be parental controls for children under age 13. Or else, Scratch wouldn't be that safe for kids

Not to be mean or anything, but how does this relate to making projects that are taken down from mass-reporting keep their original share date?

That's not rude, but it is unrelated, sorry

NateCoder2021 wrote:

medians wrote:

Quantum1993 wrote:

Support. If a project is unshared or mass reported, it's share date shouldn't be changed.

Yea, it should apply to unshared too, I have seen confusion with this on projects:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/104/
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/113321949/

Exactly, it's kinda annoying

Yea, I see so many people on the second one (I mean the one that was created after but was still reshared) ask why it looks like 2.0 (or even `1.4 because they get those confused), and why the remixes having missing text/have a date before the original project. Many people don't read the Notes and Credits of projects, and don't see that the Notes and Credits have a changelog that jumps from 2016 to 2023, has a link to a saves code topic from 2016, and says (copy and pasted): “Today's featured project is an idea i'm proposing for Scratch 3.”

Oh, and if you're wondering, griffpatch was fixing issues that 3.0 caused, and reshared the project when he was doing this.

medians wrote:

(#130)

Quantum1993 wrote:

Support. If a project is unshared or mass reported, it's share date shouldn't be changed.

Yea, it should apply to unshared too, I have seen confusion with this on projects:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/104/
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/113321949/

This suggestion only applies to reported ones, not unsharing, and I'm not changing that

sharkode wrote:

medians wrote:

(#130)

Quantum1993 wrote:

Support. If a project is unshared or mass reported, it's share date shouldn't be changed.

Yea, it should apply to unshared too, I have seen confusion with this on projects:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/104/
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/113321949/

This suggestion only applies to reported ones, not unsharing, and I'm not changing that

Well, I get that already, though I believe it should apply to reshared projects too, since I have seen a ton of confusion with that, an example is the second link.

sharkode wrote:

Changing the share date can cause confusions to which project is original, which leads to false reports and more auto censoring, also, some mass reporters want a project to be taken down to cause confusion, if we keep the original share date, it might reduce the number of mass reporting

Edit: This includes both auto censor and legitimate censoring by ST, as it could also cause confusion and sometimes ST censor things by mistake

Support

While I think this is a good suggestion, I disagree with your signature's claim that this suggestion could end “mass reporting.” Generally “mass reporting” occurs for a variety of reasons that are unrelated to the precise share date of the project. If your suggestion were implemented, I would still expect “mass reporting” to occur, more-or-less to the same scale that it happens today.

Maybe you meant “This suggestion could end project copying”?

Za-Chary wrote:

While I think this is a good suggestion, I disagree with your signature's claim that this suggestion could end “mass reporting.” Generally “mass reporting” occurs for a variety of reasons that are unrelated to the precise share date of the project. If your suggestion were implemented, I would still expect “mass reporting” to occur, more-or-less to the same scale that it happens today.

Maybe you meant “This suggestion could end project copying”?

It actually wouldn't.
A user could just replace one of their old, shared projects with another project and then claim the original was copied! (Credit for the idea)

ULTRA SUPPORT.

• Could reduce mass reporting
  
• Keeps history for archival (like weekend)
  
• The current system for date resets is honestly just weird, like why do an extra unneeded write to the date part of the project json
  

Bringing this topic back up