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.

Za-Chary wrote:

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.

Shouldn't they also be renamed to be more general?

On an unrelated note, based on the discussion in this topic, I think cat blocks are implemented.

(long unnecessary quote removed by moderator - please don't spam)

I 100% agree for the when stop block to not be added to the blocks. It will make the stop button useless. However, I have a question, will scratch ever add the cat block again in a april fools update again or is it permanantly removed?

tolimoli wrote:

(long unnecessary quote removed by moderator - please don't spam)

I 100% agree for the when stop block to not be added to the blocks. It will make the stop button useless. However, I have a question, will scratch ever add the cat block again in a april fools update again or is it permanantly removed?

Cat blocks have been readded (on any day of the year) for members specifically, based on the discussion on this topic. They should be removed from this list.

The cat ears came out, now remove the cat blocks (proof)

Member tags are here
Time for the case study on whether they increase bullying
And just in case it wasn't prominent enough, members also have an extra badge on their profile pages.

I see the membership update was released. I am awaiting proof that cat blocks have been added; I asked a Scratch Member to confirm.

(Boy, telling the difference between “Scratch Member” and “Scratch Team Member” will take some getting used to…)

I am also debating what to do about 8.2. Given that there are clearly new features for Scratch Members, I am willing to believe that this is considered a rank above Scratcher. What should I do about 8.2? A couple of my own thoughts/questions:

• Is “add a rank above Scratcher” unrejected completely, or is the Scratch Member rank an exception? This may (or may not) affect whether or not this entry should be removed.
  
  
• “Skip the New Scratcher status” is certainly still rejected, so I am assuming that I can keep this portion in the list.
  
  
• There is also a mention about a “verified Scratcher” badge. I am tempted to believe that the badges associated with the Scratch Membership are not verification badges, so I think this is still rejected. Does that sound right? If so, should it remain listed as part of 8.2?
  

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Shouldn't they also be renamed to be more general?

Ideas? The fact that these suggestions are in the “The Coding Interface” part of the list makes it a little tricky to rename.

Za-Chary wrote:

There is also a mention about a “verified Scratcher” badge. I am tempted to believe that the badges associated with the Scratch Membership are not verification badges, so I think this is still rejected. Does that sound right? If so, should it remain listed as part of 8.2?

To me it seems kind of like Elon Musk's blue checkmarks

So, they rejected Scratcher ranks. Ok. But then they added paid ranks that disregard your time on scratch and instead focus on how much you're willing to pay them. Nice.

gem1001 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

There is also a mention about a “verified Scratcher” badge. I am tempted to believe that the badges associated with the Scratch Membership are not verification badges, so I think this is still rejected. Does that sound right? If so, should it remain listed as part of 8.2?

To me it seems kind of like Elon Musk's blue checkmarks

Those are different though - Scratch Membership is like a YouTube membership, more than that weird money-based verification system that the blue checkmarks are.

Za-Chary wrote:

I see the membership update was released. I am awaiting proof that cat blocks have been added; I asked a Scratch Member to confirm.

(Boy, telling the difference between “Scratch Member” and “Scratch Team Member” will take some getting used to…)

I am also debating what to do about 8.2. Given that there are clearly new features for Scratch Members, I am willing to believe that this is considered a rank above Scratcher. What should I do about 8.2? A couple of my own thoughts/questions:

• Is “add a rank above Scratcher” unrejected completely, or is the Scratch Member rank an exception? This may (or may not) affect whether or not this entry should be removed.
  
  
• “Skip the New Scratcher status” is certainly still rejected, so I am assuming that I can keep this portion in the list.
  
  
• There is also a mention about a “verified Scratcher” badge. I am tempted to believe that the badges associated with the Scratch Membership are not verification badges, so I think this is still rejected. Does that sound right? If so, should it remain listed as part of 8.2?
  

While it is a rank adjacent feature, membership is not literally a rank; ranks cannot coexist (i.e. You have both New Scratcher and Scratch Team ranks) but membership can coexist with (presumably) any rank. Looking at the rejection on higher ranks, there is two reasons for the rejection:

• Potential bullying and separation
  
• Ranks are for denoting who has access to certain features
  

I think whoever is in charge of the membership didn't give good heed to the former (I wouldn't be surprised if membership badges get removed if bad things happen), but membership does comply with the latter, as it does provide access to certain features.

I believe suggestions to add literal new ranks above Scratcher (besides maybe making membership into an actual rank), would still be rejected.

As defined in the entry, “verified Scratcher” status would be where well-known Scratchers get a special symbol next to their name. The membership badge would not constitute this, as you do not need to be well-known to become a member.

Za-Chary wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Shouldn't they (2.3 and 2.4) also be renamed to be more general?

Ideas? The fact that these suggestions are in the “The Coding Interface” part of the list makes it a little tricky to rename.

They could be called “Setting to look like (match the aesthetic of?) older versions of Scratch” and “Revert back to older versions of the Scratch” respectively. They would have to be moved, and unfortunately the already-long section 7 would be the best place to put them.

While on the topic of rearranging TOLoRS, may I suggest splitting section 7 into “rules” and “features” (names adjustable). The split could be as follows:

• Rules: 7.3, 7.4?, 7.5, 7.6, 7.10, 7.16,
  
• Features: 7.1, 7.2, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13?, 7.14, 7.15, 7.17?, 7.18?, 2.3, 2.4
  

I could also see some combination of 2.3, 2.4, and reverting the color pallet being merged.

another one.

Paddle2see wrote:

0_009 wrote:

I would like for a block that opens a new tab with your desired link.
Here it is:

open a new tab with link () :: sensing

open a new tab with link () :: sensing

Also, please don't say this is a dupe, otherwise I will slowly turn into a chunk of ice that never thaws /j

Sorry - that feature would present a lot of safety concerns.