The Official List of Rejected Suggestions

Elijah999999

I don't think changing the name should go on the list. Just because many people suggested it doesn't mean anyone took it seriously.

BluePixelLOLLL

warriorcatsfreakalt wrote:
Stop posting about Scratch names here. They're joke posts and don't need to be in this topic.

I was mimicking what all the other jokers said

MythosLore

Two full pages from just today?

starlightsparker

MythosLore wrote:
Two full pages from just today?

What can you say? A little joke goes a long way…

Xzillox

A-MARIO-PLAYER wrote:
It's by time we put “Rename Scratch” on this list.

Agreed. It's taking up too much space in this discussion and has been suggested multiple times. Even if they're all joke suggestions, adding it to the list would make it easier to just get the joke topics closed.

BionicBoy554

what even happened here

2016s4m29

BionicBoy554 wrote:
what even happened here

All Renaming Scratch Suggestions (that are rejected)

Stop With The Renaming Scratch To Suggestions

Last edited by 2016s4m29 (Sept. 9, 2024 06:31:17)

DifferentDance8

BionicBoy554 wrote:
what even happened here

Basically, some guy decided that completely revitalising the concept of renaming Scratch was a good idea.

Elijah999999

BionicBoy554 wrote:
what even happened here

NOTHING, heh heh…

starlightsparker

DifferentDance8 wrote:
Basically, some guy decided that completely revitalising the concept of renaming Scratch was a good idea.

“Some guy” did apologize to Za-Chary about it, so it’s okay. Please don’t throw shade, even if you don’t name the Scratcher.

Last edited by starlightsparker (Sept. 9, 2024 12:25:54)

wms2024_163

starlightsparker wrote:
DifferentDance8 wrote:
Basically, some guy decided that completely revitalising the concept of renaming Scratch was a good idea.
“Some guy” did apologize to Za-Chary about it, so it’s okay. Please don’t throw shade, even if you don’t name the Scratcher.

wms2024_181 did not apoligise to nobody as he didn't need to - it was a good suggestion

Xzillox

wms2024_163 wrote:
wms2024_181 did not apoligise to nobody as he didn't need to - it was a good suggestion

It was a rejected suggestion, and after being rejected the discussion about it should've ended there unless a solution was provided.

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions (TOLORS) wrote:
This topic contains suggestions that have previously been rejected by the Scratch Team. As a result, these suggestions will not be added to Scratch, so please do not make any posts in the “Suggestions” forum asking for one of these. Otherwise, you may be directed to this topic.

Moreover, please do not make any posts in the “Suggestions” forum asking that the Scratch Team “rethink” a rejected suggestion unless you are giving a solution to the problem that caused the feature to be rejected.

starlightsparker

wms2024_163 wrote:
wms2024_163 did not apoligise to nobody as he didn't need to - it was a good suggestion

I was not talking about you; I was referring to someone else. However, upon further thought, I assume DifferentDance8 was not thinking of the same Scratcher I was.
It seems that I am the monarch of page 443.

Last edited by starlightsparker (Sept. 9, 2024 20:51:42)

Fun_Cupcake_i81

Wait, I noticed the suggestion about adding certain words to the filter because they have unoffensive context sometimes was removed… Does that mean that the Scratch Team is considering it now? Should we stop saying those words in any context?
I'm sorry if somebody already mentioned this but I'm not sure how recent this was since I have no concept of time don't come to suggestions too often and am not reading through 443 pages rn-

Ollie-Young

Sup

AliMASTER430258

Ollie-Young wrote:
Sup

Please do not chat here.

Ollie-Young

AliMASTER430258 wrote:
Ollie-Young wrote:
Sup
Please do not chat here.

Oh wrong topic sorry about that XDDD

Xzillox

Fun_Cupcake_i81 wrote:
Wait, I noticed the suggestion about adding certain words to the filter because they have unoffensive context sometimes was removed… Does that mean that the Scratch Team is considering it now? Should we stop saying those words in any context?
I'm sorry if somebody already mentioned this but I'm not sure how recent this was since I have no concept of time don't come to suggestions too often and am not reading through 443 pages rn-

iirc it was removed to prevent too many people from knowing these words are allowed (or at least something along those lines) but I could be wrong

Fun_Cupcake_i81

Xzillox wrote:
iirc it was removed to prevent too many people from knowing these words are allowed (or at least something along those lines) but I could be wrong

I don't get that though… Why would Scratch want users to not know what the rules were (thus sending unneeded reports in, causing controversy, etc.)…
I mean, maybe a couple people interpreted that line as “you can say these words always” in which case it may be better to reword it to mention how the words are ONLY allowed in a respectful context…

Oh, well. I guess if they decide they're unacceptable they won't actually ban anyone for saying them while they were allowed, right? IIRC that's what they did for the extension policy…

starlightsparker

Fun_Cupcake_i81 wrote:
I don't get that though… Why would Scratch want users to not know what the rules were (thus sending unneeded reports in, causing controversy, etc.)…
I mean, maybe a couple people interpreted that line as “you can say these words always” in which case it may be better to reword it to mention how the words are ONLY allowed in a respectful context…

Oh, well. I guess if they decide they're unacceptable they won't actually ban anyone for saying them while they were allowed, right? IIRC that's what they did for the extension policy…

It is because those words are not recommended, and may certainly be removed in some contexts, and perhaps, depending on the moderator, in all contexts.
I’d say it’s a grey area, if you will.

Discuss Scratch