Dark mode rejected or not rejected?

THEOFFICIALWCAY wrote:

Dark mode rejected or not rejected?

Not rejected. You can discuss it on this topic.

“Permanent option for cat blocks” is possibly un-rejected?

Edit: So is adding a rank above Scratcher - whether or not someone is a Scratch Member will be shown on the website soon

> https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/850363/?page=1#post-8820973
The idea for a general chatroom (made by the Scratch Team) is rejected. I'm not sure if this is already on the list itself or not, but I couldn't find something specifically outlining this rejection, though the reason is similar to 6.4.

mrsrec wrote:

“Permanent option for cat blocks” is possibly un-rejected?

Maybe, i think.

A section on the scratch site for chatting was rejected.
I also saw this multiple times, so I think it might help.
And now it's added.

mtaka4 wrote:

A section on the scratch site for chatting was rejected.
I also saw this multiple times, so I think it might help.

That's already on the list:

Za-Chary wrote:

9.3 Off-topic or miscellaneous section on the forums
This forum would have been used for posting about anything that was not necessarily related to Scratch. There actually used to be a forum topic like this, but it was difficult to moderate, and so it was shut down and replaced by the “Things I'm Making and Creating” and the “Things I'm Reading and Playing” forums (which do not completely allow off-topic posts).

zispe wrote:

> https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/850249/?page=1#post-8819362
Falls under 1.7, and was closed by an ST member. I'm not sure if this requires anything changed in the OP, I just thought I should send it either way.

I don't think anything needs to be changed, 1.7 kind of includes that as well

gem1001 wrote:

mtaka4 wrote:

A section on the scratch site for chatting was rejected.
I also saw this multiple times, so I think it might help.

That's already on the list:

Za-Chary wrote:

9.3 Off-topic or miscellaneous section on the forums
This forum would have been used for posting about anything that was not necessarily related to Scratch. There actually used to be a forum topic like this, but it was difficult to moderate, and so it was shut down and replaced by the “Things I'm Making and Creating” and the “Things I'm Reading and Playing” forums (which do not completely allow off-topic posts).

That's for forums specifically, that suggestion was about a general place on the main website

The-Sushi-Cat wrote:

gem1001 wrote:

mtaka4 wrote:

A section on the scratch site for chatting was rejected.
I also saw this multiple times, so I think it might help.

That's already on the list:

Za-Chary wrote:

9.3 Off-topic or miscellaneous section on the forums
This forum would have been used for posting about anything that was not necessarily related to Scratch. There actually used to be a forum topic like this, but it was difficult to moderate, and so it was shut down and replaced by the “Things I'm Making and Creating” and the “Things I'm Reading and Playing” forums (which do not completely allow off-topic posts).

That's for forums specifically, that suggestion was about a general place on the main website

Maybe a note could be added to 9.3 that it extends to any dedicated section of the site for miscellaneous talk?

WigglyJoey wrote:

Hold on a second the scratch team made an official contest

This is an interesting development. Should 7.17 be removed? Or is this contest somehow different in a way that I'm not seeing?

Nameorus wrote:

They added pay to win to scratch. SCRATCH! What happened to all of the “non-profit” stuff they told us about? At this point I would brace myself for when they add scratch-bux.

There are plenty of ways to “win” on Scratch without paying. The prize of the contest confuses me a little — to what degree is someone getting “featured”? — but at the end of the day, this just seems like another way to encourage creativity/engagement, like with the SDS.

Note that Scratch is still considered non-profit. “Non-profit” basically means that any money they receive must be used to support the Scratch Foundation. The Scratch Memberships still do this.

KangaCoder wrote:

I will say that they are currently considering ideas about features/suggestions that are here in TOLORS. Many of these rejections were made many years ago, and it's possible that they are being reconsidered based on Scratch's current goals. It seems like they did this for contests, as an incentive for existing members as well as to potentially attract new members.

Thanks for the comment. I look forward to seeing what changes Scratch has in mind (especially after we've sort of been through several years with no changes!).

kip23s wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/846454/ Here.

I'm afraid I don't know why you linked this topic. It looks closed, but no reason is given as to why.

zispe wrote:

> https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/850249/?page=1#post-8819362
Falls under 1.7, and was closed by an ST member. I'm not sure if this requires anything changed in the OP, I just thought I should send it either way.

Thanks! I don't think I need to edit anything though; this suggestion still just looks like 3D Scratch.

mrsrec wrote:

“Permanent option for cat blocks” is possibly un-rejected?

Edit: So is adding a rank above Scratcher - whether or not someone is a Scratch Member will be shown on the website soon

Time to spend my $150 for some cat ears. =^..^=

We'll have to wait until these changes go live before I edit the topic.

An aside: TOLORS has been a really good way for me to keep up with Scratch news these days.

zispe wrote:

> https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/850363/?page=1#post-8820973
The idea for a general chatroom (made by the Scratch Team) is rejected. I'm not sure if this is already on the list itself or not, but I couldn't find something specifically outlining this rejection, though the reason is similar to 6.4.

Thanks! I'll hold off for now; it doesn't seem commonly suggested.

mtaka4 wrote:

A section on the scratch site for chatting was rejected.
I also saw this multiple times, so I think it might help.

Oh. Well, do you have examples of when it was suggested recently?

gem1001 wrote:

Maybe a note could be added to 9.3 that it extends to any dedicated section of the site for miscellaneous talk?

Ideally, if it was a rejection about the main website, then it wouldn't just be written as a note in the “forums” part of TOLORS.

3.1 is not really a “rejected suggestion”, is it? Isn't it more a rule?
Also, after Sprunki being banned, I feel like 3.3 could be changed in some way

Za-Chary wrote:

-snip-

mtaka4 wrote:

A section on the scratch site for chatting was rejected.
I also saw this multiple times, so I think it might help.

Oh. Well, do you have examples of when it was suggested recently?
-snip-

I didn't really keep track of witch ones were suggested, but I saw it twice.

EDIT: part of Paddle's quote contains

Paddle2see wrote:

I'm pretty sure we've addressed this in earlier suggestions.
-snip-

mrsrec wrote:

“Permanent option for cat blocks” is possibly un-rejected?

Edit: So is adding a rank above Scratcher - whether or not someone is a Scratch Member will be shown on the website soon

Cat blocks never had a strong rejection statement, the post TOLoRS quotes not actually being a topic-closing rejection statement. I figure the TOLoRS statement on them was beneficial for controlling the hype around them, and wouldn't be surprised if there was a proper rejection statement, but I see no reason that they shouldn't come besides development time, and they should require much of that.

“(UEPR-399) Add avatar badges for Scratch Members #9901” seems to be adding a visual badge to “members”' “avatars” (PFPs?), not a new rank. 8.2 remains intact

CoolLock wrote:

3.1 is not really a “rejected suggestion”, is it? Isn't it more a rule?
Also, after Sprunki being banned, I feel like 3.3 could be changed in some way

3.1 rejects changing the rule.

There were banned franchises before Sprunki. It is less that banning certain franchises is rejected, and more that the ST only does so in extreme cases, and does not want the community's input on it, so it is still useful to have it on the list.

Za-Chary wrote:

kip23s wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/846454/ Here.

I'm afraid I don't know why you linked this topic. It looks closed, but no reason is given as to why.

The Suggestion was for Scratch to Buy Roblox, that ain't happening and never will happen.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

CoolLock wrote:

3.1 is not really a “rejected suggestion”, is it? Isn't it more a rule?

3.1 rejects changing the rule.

Then I think its title should be “Allow chat projects with cloud variables” because the current title is confusing (at least to me).

mingo-gag wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

kip23s wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/846454/ Here.

I'm afraid I don't know why you linked this topic. It looks closed, but no reason is given as to why.

The Suggestion was for Scratch to Buy Roblox, that ain't happening and never will happen.

That's so far-fetched and unrealistic I don't think it even needs to be on the list.

Za-Chary wrote:

WigglyJoey wrote:

Hold on a second the scratch team made an official contest

This is an interesting development. Should 7.17 be removed? Or is this contest somehow different in a way that I'm not seeing?

I've gone ahead and made a suggestion. Hopefully we're able to get more information on if the suggestion is still rejected and/or what is still rejected about it.

i want the

() ! :: operators reporter

block

TIMAscratch001 wrote:

i want the

() ! :: operators reporter

block

Please suggest things in your own topic, not here.

sorry i wont do that ever again