draymondfu wrote:

CodeComet6161 wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

CodeComet6161 wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

alot of people wrote:

stuff i snipped

please mention that the link you provided me was from 2016 and posting there would be necroposting.

There's no such thing as necroposting in the suggestions forum.

right, but it is still considered necroposting if the thread is discontinued for a long time.

No it isn't, actually.

here. ill simplify it

when green flag clicked
start forum ::control
wait until <[forum] = [discontinued v]>
forum ended ::sensing
wait [a long time] years ::control
someone posts
NECROPOSTERSSSSSSSSS ::looks

The forum isn't “ended” until it closes, and as long as it's relevant, it's not necroposting.
And please for the love of scratch cat himself fix your quotes

wallaceji wrote:

-snip-

wallaceji wrote:

mtaka4 wrote:

Scratch Isn't YouTube. They have different rules.

Good to know that you are saying that they can abuse their power.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Having separate rules from YouTube does not constitute a license to abuse one's power. If any moderator abused their power, they would be fired.

Unless it were a manager.

Why would they risk getting sued or lose money due to people not using the site.

draymondfu wrote:

CodeComet6161 wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

alot of people wrote:

stuff i snipped

please mention that the link you provided me was from 2016 and posting there would be necroposting.

CodeComet6161 wrote:

There's no such thing as necroposting in the suggestions forum.

right, but it is still considered necroposting if the thread is discontinued for a long time.

No it isn't, actually.

here. ill simplify it

when green flag clicked
start forum ::control
wait until <[forum] = [discontinued v]>
forum ended ::sensing
wait [a long time] years ::control
someone posts
NECROPOSTERSSSSSSSSS ::looks

Because of the immortality of a suggestion and the non-essential link to the poster, the suggestions forum cannot be necroposted on unless the topic is no longer relevant.

mtaka4 wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

-snip-

wallaceji wrote:

mtaka4 wrote:

Scratch Isn't YouTube. They have different rules.

Good to know that you are saying that they can abuse their power.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Having separate rules from YouTube does not constitute a license to abuse one's power. If any moderator abused their power, they would be fired.

Unless it were a manager.

Why would they risk getting sued or lose money due to people not using the site.

But you agreed to the ToU, so doesn't that mean they can basically do whatever they want?

wallaceji wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

mingo-gag wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

mingo-gag supposedly wrote:

Please do not mention specific “violators” of any given policy, regardless of whether or not you understand that policy.

So we should let them break the rules and not expose them?

Why on earth did you make me look like I said something else

This looks like a BBcode mistake. I said what it looked like you said.

wallaceji wrote:

Then why not take down the exposing videos on YouTube?

The ST does not have power over YouTube.

So? I see no problem with naming and shaming unless it were towards someone innocent, and what if they were cheating in a way that does not break the CG?

Naming and shaming leads to drama and potential flame wars. It is best to leave moderation to the ST, who are in the best position to see the whole story.

“Cheating” is not well enough defined to debate this point further.

wallaceji wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

mtaka4 wrote:

Scratch Isn't YouTube. They have different rules.

Good to know that you are saying that they can abuse their power.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

Having separate rules from YouTube does not constitute a license to abuse one's power. If any moderator abused their power, they would be fired.

Unless it were a manager.

Managers could be fired by higher-ups, and those at the top of the ladder could get ousted if they were found to be abusing their power.

wallaceji wrote:

But you agreed to the ToU, so doesn't that mean they can basically do whatever they want?

Unlike many companies, Scratch's ToU isn't written to grant unlimited power in Scratch's relations with its users. It essentially just states that they can punish people misusing the site.

By the way, would it be rejected to bring back the 2.0 blue but the current light mode purple theme would be default on? I'm asking for something I'll either post on the website customizable colors suggestion or as a suggestion for accessibility presets

medians wrote:

By the way, would it be rejected to bring back the 2.0 blue but the current light mode purple theme would be default on? I'm asking for something I'll either post on the website customizable colors suggestion or as a suggestion for accessibility presets

No. The quote below also links to the topic you mentioned, which technically would include the light blue.

7.14 wrote:

However, an option to change the color palette is NOT rejected. You can discuss it on this topic.

CoolLock wrote:

medians wrote:

By the way, would it be rejected to bring back the 2.0 blue but the current light mode purple theme would be default on? I'm asking for something I'll either post on the website customizable colors suggestion or as a suggestion for accessibility presets

No. The quote below also links to the topic you mentioned, which technically would include the light blue.

7.14 wrote:

However, an option to change the color palette is NOT rejected. You can discuss it on this topic.

Yeah, but I thought it would be separate since the topic was for changing it to anything, while I am suggesting presets
Anyway, I was wondering if it would fall under bringing back the blue though

I just made a significant overhaul to the list based on previous discussion. The changes I made:

• Section 7 was now split into two: Section 7 is still labeled as “Scratch Community,” while Section 8 is now “Scratch Website Features.” My thinking is that Section 7 is for suggestions about the Scratch community that do not require any additional functionality/features to be implemented, while Section 8 is for suggestions about the Scratch website that do require additional functionality/features to be implemented.
  
  For example, “Propose your own projects to be featured” is in Section 7 because the Scratch Team could theoretically implement this now without any extra features. But “Project advertisements on the Scratch website” is in Section 8 because there is currently no system in place for these project advertisements around the website, and so the Scratch Team would need to spend time developing such a feature.
  
  
• What was formerly 2.3 (Set the editor to look like older versions of Scratch) and 2.4 (Revert back to older versions of the Scratch editor) have been moved to Section 8, and reworded to more clearly state that this applies to the website and not just the editor.
  
  
• What was formerly 5.4 (Revert back to older versions of the studio pages) and 7.14 (Revert the purple color palette back to blue) have been merged into what is now 8.4. I think this makes sense for organizational purposes.
  
  
• I've edited what is now 9.2 to emphasize that a Scratch Member is not a rank higher than Scratcher in the usual sense; I wonder if this will help or just cause more confusion.
  

There was some discussion a few weeks ago about removing some suggestions from the list. I looked at those specific suggestions and I don't think I found enough of a reason to remove them at this time. Maybe I misremembered the full conversation.

As always, I welcome feedback on the changes that I made, including on how entries should be ordered and if certain entries should be removed!

Object_3 wrote:

do you think you could revise 8.4 with the addition of membership
or at least explain how membership interacts with the rejection

(8.4 is now 9.4.) But did you mention the correct entry? 9.4 is about showing when users are banned. Is there something about the Scratch Membership that conflicts with showing when users are banned?

medians wrote:

By the way, would it be rejected to bring back the 2.0 blue but the current light mode purple theme would be default on? I'm asking for something I'll either post on the website customizable colors suggestion or as a suggestion for accessibility presets

The quoted rejection (which is mentioned in what is now 8.4), should be interpreted as completely reverting the purple to blue (i.e. going back to the old way). Suggestions which are not just asking to completely go back to the old way should be fine. In particular, I believe a purple-by-default, blue-by-option setting is not rejected.

CodeComet6161 wrote:

Just like how you suggested to remove TOLoRS, someone literally suggested to remove the forums.

I agree that this is not a well-defined suggestion (they seem to be complaining about the membership, and I'm not sure what that has to do with the forums), so I don't need to add it to the list at this time.

Increase Clone Limit how? we can have a warning for weaker devices if it goes beyond the clone limit i think you should focus on optimizing scratch so users can have the best experience so more complex projects can run better but you probably not going to do that.

Za-Chary wrote:

medians wrote:

By the way, would it be rejected to bring back the 2.0 blue but the current light mode purple theme would be default on? I'm asking for something I'll either post on the website customizable colors suggestion or as a suggestion for accessibility presets

The quoted rejection (which is mentioned in what is now 8.4), should be interpreted as completely reverting the purple to blue (i.e. going back to the old way). Suggestions which are not just asking to completely go back to the old way should be fine. In particular, I believe a purple-by-default, blue-by-option setting is not rejected.

Yeah I was just wondering, as I think I remember topics like that being closed because of the blue rejection

rufua2014ultra wrote:

Increase Clone Limit how? we can have a warning for weaker devices if it goes beyond the clone limit i think you should focus on optimizing scratch so users can have the best experience so more complex projects can run better but you probably not going to do that.

support im on a school chromebook running 4gb while playing 27 cloud variable amongus

rufua2014ultra wrote:

Increase Clone Limit how? we can have a warning for weaker devices if it goes beyond the clone limit i think you should focus on optimizing scratch so users can have the best experience so more complex projects can run better but you probably not going to do that.

You should post this as a suggestion. This list wasn't created by the Scratch Team, so we can't help you.

you forgot to update the simplified tolors that only states the basic reason for rejection.

rufua2014ultra wrote:

Increase Clone Limit how? we can have a warning for weaker devices if it goes beyond the clone limit i think you should focus on optimizing scratch so users can have the best experience so more complex projects can run better but you probably not going to do that.

We can't trust people not to crash themselves with reclusive cloning. Scratch wants to keep supporting weaker devices (including low-end tablets and possibly phones), and there is only so much optimizing can do.

medians wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

medians wrote:

By the way, would it be rejected to bring back the 2.0 blue but the current light mode purple theme would be default on? I'm asking for something I'll either post on the website customizable colors suggestion or as a suggestion for accessibility presets

The quoted rejection (which is mentioned in what is now 8.4), should be interpreted as completely reverting the purple to blue (i.e. going back to the old way). Suggestions which are not just asking to completely go back to the old way should be fine. In particular, I believe a purple-by-default, blue-by-option setting is not rejected.

Yeah I was just wondering, as I think I remember topics like that being closed because of the blue rejection

I remember those topics being closed as dupes of a topic that got merged into this one rather than as rejected.

CodeComet6161 wrote:

Just like how you suggested to remove TOLoRS, someone literally suggested to remove the forums.

If you read the post carefully, that… wasn't a-actually r-r-rejected…

rufua2014ultra wrote:

Increase Clone Limit how? we can have a warning for weaker devices if it goes beyond the clone limit i think you should focus on optimizing scratch so users can have the best experience so more complex projects can run better but you probably not going to do that.

something called turbowarp exists

gem1001 wrote:

CodeComet6161 wrote:

Just like how you suggested to remove TOLoRS, someone literally suggested to remove the forums.

If you real @cheddargirl's post carefully, that… wasn't a-actually r-r-rejected…

that was not cheddargirl

gem1001 wrote:

CodeComet6161 wrote:

Just like how you suggested to remove TOLoRS, someone literally suggested to remove the forums.

If you real @cheddargirl's post carefully, that… wasn't a-actually r-r-rejected…

*@LittleGreyCells