mingo-gag wrote:

kip22s wrote:

Evil Scratch.

I think that was a joke topics and Mark just ran with it.

of course, here is the other evil scratch suggestion.

Olimon7661 wrote:

Comix_2 wrote:

What happened to the one rejected suggestion that was about censoring minor swear words like damn, crap, and piss

it was removed for being taken the wrong way iirc

Indeed, I believe people often quoted this to claim that all uses of those words are allowed, when in fact they are not. It was causing confusion, so I removed it.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

I have no objection to 10.3B either.

I'll keep thinking about that list and see if others have opinions, but my only comment on your opinions for right now is that I'm not sure we need to toss 10.3B since “10.3” is going to take up another entry regardless of whether we keep 10.3B.

Just remembered, about 9.5: I feel like I've seen this suggested a few times before, but that could have been from 4-5 years ago. Maybe it's not suggested much anymore?

DarthVader4Life wrote:

That's part of the criticism; the original problem is unclear. It was rejected for being too confusing when… it's not?

I've said this elsewhere, but programming with the existing lists can be challenging for new users, even if they've used a grocery list before. A grocery list is quite different from programming with lists. It's really obvious to you and me how to use lists and possibly tables, but for new programmers, it's not necessarily so easy.

I see no issues with implementing tables as an extension, though.

gem1001 wrote:

Should ‘this suggestion extends to’ be changed to 'this rejection extends to' or 'this entry extends to'?

Huh, good point. I've edited the list; now it just says “this” (e.g. “This extends to…”). I'm not sure an extra word is needed there at all.

pippy2011eight wrote:

I think that 2.3, 2.4 and 5.4 should be combined into “revert to older versions of scratch”, due to this topic: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/853265/, about reverting the whole site to an older version of scratch be rejected

For now I'll just edit 2.3 and 2.4 to say that this extends to the Scratch website as a whole. Remember that 2.3 is a slightly different suggestion, so I don't think I'll be merging 2.3 or 2.4.

starlightsparker wrote:

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

Thanks; I'm not sure that is a serious suggestion, but either way it's not commonly-suggested anyway.

starlightsparker wrote:

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.

You are correct, but at the same time it's also good for Scratchers to weigh in with their opinions on whether or not this should be added to the list. (Note that @Catscratcher07 is saying that this suggestion should not be added to the list, not that you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Indeed, you should bring it up! But it doesn't need to be added to the list in the OP.)

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.

Thanks for the update. Let me know when the changes are officially live, and then I can remove that entry from the list.

Scratch_Cat_Coder8 wrote:

Removing “no support” is newly rejected

Thanks! I don't think I need to add this one to the list; it's not suggested too often.

mingo-gag wrote:

Things I'm Eating and Drinking got rejected because it's a “bit of a Stretch” on here

Rip Eggs I guess

I gotta admit, this one lasted way longer than I was expecting. I probably don't need to add it to the list at this time.

mingo-gag wrote:

kip22s wrote:

Evil Scratch.

I think that was a joke topics and Mark just ran with it.

Agreed.