Toodchop wrote:

I think this is rejected.

Because a user named “cheddargirl” closed it.

If there are any more suggestions in that vein, then the closing post would be a good one to link to when adding a note about relaxing new scratcher restrictions to 8.2.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Toodchop wrote:

I think this is rejected.

Because a user named “cheddargirl” closed it.

If there are any more suggestions in that vein, then the closing post would be a good one to link to when adding a note about relaxing new scratcher restrictions to 8.2.

Just got to say… Congradulations on the 10,000th reply to the TOLORS!

And yes. Its probably a good idea to clarify that cloud variables are included in 8.2 with a link to that post or another rejected one based on relaxing cloud variable use.

MagicCoder330 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Toodchop wrote:

I think this is rejected.

Because a user named “cheddargirl” closed it.

If there are any more suggestions in that vein, then the closing post would be a good one to link to when adding a note about relaxing new scratcher restrictions to 8.2.

Just got to say… Congradulations on the 10,000th reply to the TOLORS!

And yes. It’s probably a good idea to clarify that cloud variables are included in 8.2 with a link to that post or another rejected one based on relaxing cloud variable use.

No I don’t think so if reject

Why is this here if he is not on scratch team? Not to be rude but if he is a scratcher then why is he making the rules

Danishr777 wrote:

Why is this here if he is not on scratch team? Not to be rude but if he is a scratcher then why is he making the rules

he didn't make them rejected.
It's a list of rejected suggestions by the scratch team. Also he was scratch team once I think

Danishr777 wrote:

Why is this here if he is not on scratch team? Not to be rude but if he is a scratcher then why is he making the rules

1. He didn't reject them himself, it's a list of suggestions other ST members rejected

2. He actually once was a Scratch Team member, though he left.

mtaka4 wrote:

Danishr777 wrote:

Why is this here if he is not on scratch team? Not to be rude but if he is a scratcher then why is he making the rules

he didn't make them rejected.
It's a list of rejected suggestions by the scratch team. Also he was scratch team once I think

I can confirm that he used to be on the Scratch Team. I remember when he stepped down.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

It still doesn't sound like a rejection, but rather a (potentially temporary) closure as overly heated, or at most a “ban certain franchises” level “rejection” where they won't necessary never do it but they don't want discussion about it (and perhaps collaborations with companies that don't share Scratch's goals in general, but that would need more precedent) in the suggestions forum.

Makes sense. I doubt all “collab with X” suggestions are banned — but perhaps they may need to be made in good faith with good reasons why the collaboration would work.

Toodchop wrote:

I think this is rejected.

Because a user named “cheddargirl” closed it.

Thanks. I suspect I won't need to add it at this time, though.

Toodchop wrote:

Maybe add these blocks to “money blocks” in “8.7”.

ask for [$ v] (5) and wait :: operators

when [$ v] (5) paid :: operators hat

So, it can make that more noticeable.

would the real post #10000 please stand up

I only include Scratchblock mockups in Section 1. Moreover, I think “money blocks” is probably self-explanatory; no need for a mockup in this topic. Given that “money blocks” is also merged with “digital currency,” I'd rather prevent potential confusion.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Toodchop wrote:

I think this is rejected.

Because a user named “cheddargirl” closed it.

If there are any more suggestions in that vein, then the closing post would be a good one to link to when adding a note about relaxing new scratcher restrictions to 8.2.

Congrats on reply 10000 (at the time of writing this)!

I'm back-and-forth on this. 8.2 doesn't really feel like it's about relaxing New Scratcher restrictions; it's more about skipping the New Scratcher status. That is related, but not exactly the same as relaxing the restrictions. 8.2 is already quite long and has 2 merged suggestions, so I don't know if it's the right choice to make it even longer / merge another suggestion with it.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

mtaka4 wrote:

Danishr777 wrote:

Why is this here if he is not on scratch team? Not to be rude but if he is a scratcher then why is he making the rules

he didn't make them rejected.
It's a list of rejected suggestions by the scratch team. Also he was scratch team once I think

I can confirm that he used to be on the Scratch Team. I remember when he stepped down.

I can also confirm that I used to be on the Scratch Team.

Za-Chary wrote:

I'm back-and-forth on this. 8.2 doesn't really feel like it's about relaxing New Scratcher restrictions; it's more about skipping the New Scratcher status. That is related, but not exactly the same as relaxing the restrictions. 8.2 is already quite long and has 2 merged suggestions, so I don't know if it's the right choice to make it even longer / merge another suggestion with it.

8.2 is the best fitting, pre-existing spot for adding a note like:

This extends to relaxing new scratcher restrictions. See this post for more information.

My suggestion to add a note is if we get a few more suggestions like it, so you don't need to make a decision at this time. If we get a lot more suggestions like it, that's when it should have its own entry.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

I'm back-and-forth on this. 8.2 doesn't really feel like it's about relaxing New Scratcher restrictions; it's more about skipping the New Scratcher status. That is related, but not exactly the same as relaxing the restrictions. 8.2 is already quite long and has 2 merged suggestions, so I don't know if it's the right choice to make it even longer / merge another suggestion with it.

8.2 is the best fitting, pre-existing spot for adding a note like:

This extends to relaxing new scratcher restrictions. See this post for more information.

My suggestion to add a note is if we get a few more suggestions like it, so you don't need to make a decision at this time. If we get a lot more suggestions like it, that's when it should have its own entry.

Such a general note would only make sense if we can say without a doubt that any relaxation of New Scratcher status is rejected, and I don't believe we can.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Such a general note would only make sense if we can say without a doubt that any relaxation of New Scratcher status is rejected, and I don't believe we can.

Fair point.

This extends to relaxing new scratcher restrictions that provide or require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines. See this post for more information.

Does this work better?

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Such a general note would only make sense if we can say without a doubt that any relaxation of New Scratcher status is rejected, and I don't believe we can.

Fair point.

This extends to relaxing new scratcher restrictions that provide or require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines. See this post for more information.

Does this work better?

How would one determine which New Scratcher restrictions exists to require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines? Isn't that the purpose of the New Scratcher status in its entirety?

Catscratcher07 wrote:

How would one determine which New Scratcher restrictions exists to require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines? Isn't that the purpose of the New Scratcher status in its entirety?

Dropping “or require,” does it work?

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

How would one determine which New Scratcher restrictions exists to require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines? Isn't that the purpose of the New Scratcher status in its entirety?

Dropping “or require,” does it work?

No, because provide can be used interchangeably with require here.

why isn't cuphead day here pretty sure it was rejected smh
edit: 1750th post apparently :(

IGNITEstudios wrote:

why isn't cuphead day here pretty sure it was rejected smh
edit: 1750th post apparently :(

Only rejected suggestions that are suggested with some degree of regularity are mentioned here. The list would be very impractical if it contained every one off rejected suggestion that would likely never come up again.

Maybe add a sentence for 6.5 to extend to the forums: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/771714/#post-8719036

I think I saw a post saying rejected suggestions come in waves; I think that's currently happening. A lot of people are asking for disabling remixes now.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Such a general note would only make sense if we can say without a doubt that any relaxation of New Scratcher status is rejected, and I don't believe we can.

Fair point.

This extends to relaxing new scratcher restrictions that provide or require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines. See this post for more information.

Does this work better?

How would one determine which New Scratcher restrictions exists to require proof of responsibility in following Community Guidelines? Isn't that the purpose of the New Scratcher status in its entirety?

I also partially interpret @cheddargirl's rejection as referring primarily to the cloud variable restriction as opposed to any other restriction. The suggestion specifically mentions cloud variables, after all.

If it's not clear, maybe I can leave it off the list for now. I'd need clearer wording from a Scratch Team member stating what is rejected or not in order to add a note about this to the list.

WigglyJoey wrote:

Maybe add a sentence for 6.5 to extend to the forums: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/771714/#post-8719036

I'll explicitly mention posts along with comments in the reason for rejection.

Za-Chary wrote:

1.1 “Broadcast received” boolean block
This in theory would allow a project to detect when a broadcast is sent, but there is ambiguity on how this would work. Would it return true if the broadcast was run at any point after the green flag was clicked, or only on the instant the broadcast was run, or something else? The workaround is simple: use variables that change when a broadcast is received, then use the “equals” block.

lets talk abt why b1.1 is recgected OH MY GOD THATS LITERRALY HOW MESSAGES WORK