10goto10 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

The purpose of the Suggestions forum is to propose suggestions to the Scratch Team, and to provide them with useful discussion on how such features could be helpful for Scratch while still fitting Scratch's Design Goals. So it would not be helpful to suggest anything that is currently rejected.

I guess is nice that you found this ancient post by someone who left long ago

… it's a sticky by a former ST member

10goto10 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

The purpose of the Suggestions forum is to propose suggestions to the Scratch Team, and to provide them with useful discussion on how such features could be helpful for Scratch while still fitting Scratch's Design Goals. So it would not be helpful to suggest anything that is currently rejected.

I guess is nice that you found this ancient post by someone who left long ago but given that the “design goals web page” is no longer available by any link on the Scratch web site (not that I could find anywhere) I feel like it is more of a historical reference. Again, it seems likely the Scratch Team has shifted their focus somewhat based on all of the changes that they have made and are talking about making. Unfortunately, there is no way for the average Scratcher to ask. So, if you have a connection maybe you could ask if they have any interest in this forum and if so what would they now like to see discussed. I think it is time for a level set.

Two (maybe three depending on your viewpoint) suggestions being currently ambiguous on whether they are still rejected and in what manner is not an upheaval of this topic. TOLORS still functions extremely well, covering a variety of things. I quote this topic on the regular. For the time being, I think it is safe to assume that, unless otherwise stated by an official source, these rejected suggestions are still rejected.

This seems to be semi-rejected: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/8864761/

DarthVader4Life wrote:

For the time being, I think it is safe to assume that, unless otherwise stated by an official source, these rejected suggestions are still rejected.

So your approach is to notice that significance changes are being made and just sit and wait for more instructions rather than being proactive.

That’s okay, but the proactive approach is also valid.

If this forum exists just for our sake as a creative outlet then that’s fine. I’m just asking can we find out if this is still useful to the Scratch Team and what might now change to make this forum more useful to them given that they have removed the design goal link, they are age-gating contests, they have plans to separate donors from non-donors, they have plans to add some kind of AI “helper” that apparently might suggest using sprites from other people’s projects, and they are actively advertising to parents the new benefits of buying a membership - beyond a simple request for donations.

But we can just wait and not ask any questions.

10goto10 wrote:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

For the time being, I think it is safe to assume that, unless otherwise stated by an official source, these rejected suggestions are still rejected.

So your approach is to notice that significance changes are being made and just sit and wait for more instructions rather than being proactive.

To quote Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87 of Hamlet, "No."
I'm saying that for the majority of suggestions on this list, we do not have anything concrete suggesting that there has been a change to the validity of the rejection.

10goto10 wrote:

That’s okay, but the proactive approach is also valid.

Generally, yes, but in regards to making topics about rejected suggestions, I don't fully agree with that assessment. Contests and Cat Blocks, in my opinion, are currently ambiguous enough to warrant a suggestion going ahead and being made. Beyond that would be 2D lists, since the rejection was essentially “seems complicated” without any real explanation as to why it was too complicated or if a simpler approach to 2D lists would have worked. But 2D lists aren't related to the recent changes made by the membership.

10goto10 wrote:

If this forum exists just for our sake as a creative outlet then that’s fine. I’m just asking can we find out if this is still useful to the Scratch Team and what might now change to make this forum more useful to them given that they have removed the design goal link, they are age-gating contests, they have plans to separate donors from non-donors, they have plans to add some kind of AI “helper” that apparently might suggest using sprites from other people’s projects, and they are actively advertising to parents the new benefits of buying a membership - beyond a simple request for donations.

I'd call the Suggestions forum more of a place to see the communities' desires rather than a place to search for specific ideas, but Scratch has a small dev team, high standards for implementing changes, and has limited funds from donations. They were never going to implement every good idea.

10goto10 wrote:

But we can just wait and not ask any questions.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't straw man my position and would ask me to elaborate. I wasn't even talking about the Suggestions forum in general; I was talking about TOLORS specifically.

10goto10 wrote:

That’s okay, but the proactive approach is also valid.

I don't think the proactive approach is valid. The purpose of this topic is documentation, and “proactive” documentation is just speculation being stated as fact.

starlightsparker wrote:

This seems to be semi-rejected: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/8864761/

This does not seem to be serious enough of a suggestion to warrant being on the list.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

This does not seem to be serious enough of a suggestion to warrant being on the list.

I recall Za-Chary saying that we should link any rejected suggestions here regardless of anything, but that could be my memory playing tricks on me.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

To quote Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87 of Hamlet, "No."
I'm saying that for the majority of suggestions on this list, we do not have anything concrete suggesting that there has been a change to the validity of the rejection.

But that’s what I’m saying. If you see the business office making a lot of changes, It makes sense to ask questions to make sure you are still in alignment and still relevant to what they are doing. Otherwise this is just something we are doing for ourselves.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

10goto10 wrote:

That’s okay, but the proactive approach is also valid.

Generally, yes, but in regards to making topics about rejected suggestions, I don't fully agree with that assessment. Contests and Cat Blocks, in my opinion, are currently ambiguous enough to warrant a suggestion going ahead and being made. Beyond that would be 2D lists, since the rejection was essentially “seems complicated” without any real explanation as to why it was too complicated or if a simpler approach to 2D lists would have worked. But 2D lists aren't related to the recent changes made by the membership.

Membership is an important change because now they are reaching out to a new customer base.

Earlier I did link 2D lists to membership because I would expect a parent, if you make them spend time considering signing up for a membership, to look at how well Scratch teaches basic programming concepts and decide if Scratch is the choice that they want to support. This is valid to bring up in brainstorming and offer it for discussion, except TOLORS would shut it down immediately.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

I'd call the Suggestions forum more of a place to see the communities' desires rather than a place to search for specific ideas, but Scratch has a small dev team, high standards for implementing changes, and has limited funds from donations. They were never going to implement every good idea.

Economics should not be a reason to shut down brainstorming. All of these rejected suggestions were made in the past, maybe going back to 2013. If the Scratch Team gets value from seeing what people want then let’s let Scratchers brainstorm in the original suggestion topic with a warning that this has gotten push back from the Scratch Team and unless some mitigating argument is added then it is probably not worth further discussion. Of course this is already said in the fine print of TOLORS but the reply that people get is just “rejected” and then a moderator closes their post.

DarthVader4Life wrote:

10goto10 wrote:

But we can just wait and not ask any questions.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't straw man my position and would ask me to elaborate. I wasn't even talking about the Suggestions forum in general; I was talking about TOLORS specifically.

I was talking about

DarthVader4Life wrote:

For the time being, I think it is safe to assume that, unless otherwise stated by an official source, these rejected suggestions are still rejected.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

10goto10 wrote:

That’s okay, but the proactive approach is also valid.

I don't think the proactive approach is valid. The purpose of this topic is documentation, and “proactive” documentation is just speculation being stated as fact.

“Proactive” documentation. Interesting idea but I just meant “not waiting”. Letting the business office know that we’ve noticed that they are making changes and remind them that we are here and can help offer suggestions if they will tell us what they are reviewing.

The problem is that there seems to be only one scratcher who has access to at least some part of the Scratch Team (and perhaps not even the business part).

Add this to the list

WigglyJoey wrote:

Add this to the list

I don't think that that's nessicary, as not many people are suggesting that (evil scratch had 2 seprate suggestions for some reason, but that's besides the point)

Za-Chary wrote:

For cat blocks, I'm willing to remove it from the list once these are actually implemented for Scratch Members. I still don't know if accepting a PR request on GitHub means that it will 100% be implemented.

It is now merged, meaning it has been added to the official code for the Scratch Editor.
The cat ears and little

(member::looks)

tag next to your username have also been merged into Scratch's official code.
So as soon as they update the live version of the site, the changes will be live.

gem1001 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

For cat blocks, I'm willing to remove it from the list once these are actually implemented for Scratch Members. I still don't know if accepting a PR request on GitHub means that it will 100% be implemented.

It is now merged, meaning it has been added to the official code for the Scratch Editor.
The cat ears and little

(member::looks)

tag next to your username have also been merged into Scratch's official code.
So as soon as they update the live version of the site, the changes will be live.

It's automatic as a bot makes a master PR for scratch-www at least.