The Official List of Rejected Suggestions

CodeComet6161

cooljaah2017 wrote:
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

Probably because…
Yay king of the page

Last edited by CodeComet6161 (Sept. 14, 2025 18:00:26)

Catscratcher07

cooljaah2017 wrote:
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

I don't think you are reading the rejection clearly. 1.1 is rejected because of ambiguously:

when I receive [ v]

Is not ambiguous as it is inferable from its name alone that it preforms the below blocks when (the instant, and not again until) the broadcast is sent.

<broadcast [ v] received? :: events>

Is ambiguous as it is not clear from its name weather it reports true continuously once the broadcast has been sent, or for just an instant after it is broadcasted.

OMGCHOVIE2013

Even though this is rejected, it still should be a thing https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1156493148/

Catscratcher07

OMGCHOVIE2013 wrote:
Even though this is rejected, it still should be a thing https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1156493148/

This is a list of suggestions, not all of which are rejected, and if something is rejected, it has been rejected for a good reason and should not be a thing, at least without heavy amendment to fix its faults.

Bitebite12

This was just rejected.

CodeComet6161

New rejected:
.

Last edited by CodeComet6161 (Sept. 20, 2025 20:08:48)

Catscratcher07

CodeComet6161 wrote:
New rejected:
~text changed for ease of clickablity~

That suggestion was closed as made without considering how Scratch handles audio files, and thus would not solve the problem it was tying to.

I'm not sure it actually counts as rejected, and it explicitly does not set a precedent.

mtaka4

mtaka4 wrote:
Bitebite12 wrote:
Studio messages haven't been happening lately. How much of a chance do you think it is that it has been removed? I doubt so, but I figure I'll ask here, in case you know.
Ive been seeing them too many times lately

Oops 8 thought you meant dupes for the turning off studio messages. Now I get it. I never saw one now.

TSKN123

Make the stop sign hat block for April Fools' only

mtaka4

TSKN123 wrote:
Make the stop sign hat block for April Fools' only

But if you try to use it it shows a rickroll

mtaka4

Za-Chary wrote:
(reserved in case I ever need this particular post location)

i can tell

Imtwentytenth

So recently an old topic appeared at the top, because this post stated why this suggestion can be rejected. And the suggestion has the same problem as “Increase the 300 clone limit”. I think this topic should be added to TOLoRS.
But this isn't tested yet, so this is a question.

Last edited by Imtwentytenth (Sept. 21, 2025 16:17:13)

CodeComet6161

Imtwentytenth wrote:
So recently an old topic appeared at the top, because this post stated why this suggestion can be rejected. And the suggestion has the same problem as “Increase the 300 clone limit”. I think this topic should be added to TOLoRS.

Not quite yet, it has to be closed by a moderator before it can be added.

Spaceandmoon1

Has https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/76356/ been implemented?

Imtwentytenth

Spaceandmoon1 wrote:
Has https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/76356/ been implemented?

No, but studio activity message have disappeared for some reason.

Matthobro120

Has there ever been a rejection for

(() ^ ()::operator)

Last edited by Matthobro120 (Sept. 24, 2025 17:55:50)

Catscratcher07

Matthobro120 wrote:
Has there ever been a rejection for
(() ^ ()::operator)

no.

SU-47_Orca

What if scratch had a moderated private messaging system?

CodeComet6161

SU-47_Orca wrote:
What if scratch had a moderated private messaging system?

That would just lead to the process being harder, as they would have to check every system, slowing moderation down. I think it's safe to say private messaging won't be added period.

SMG4fan7236

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/841425/

Discuss Scratch