0_009 wrote:

Why did you remove the pi reporter block in this list of rejected suggestions?????????????????

I don't remember it ever being on the list

King

mtaka4 wrote:

Why not link to the Wayback Machine? (Unless it was never achived)

I guess I hadn't thought about it at the time.

redspacecat wrote:

A new rejected thing: “Don't exaggerate password requirements”
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/8931206/

cosmosaura wrote:

This is rejected. We hear you that long passwords can be a hassle, but simple passwords are easier to guess and crack. We want to make sure your account stays totally safe, so keeping these security rules helps protect all your hard work and progress!

This suggestion is a little unclear to me. It seems like it is less a suggestion about Scratch and more of a suggestion for the community. Either way, it doesn't appear to be suggested often, so I'll not add it to the list.

KingDrover wrote:

Hey, maybe the 3D Scratch discussion should be moved somewhere else?

Absolutely.

KingDrover wrote:

Anyway…
Regarding 9.1, I recently saw a more in-depth explanation by Cheddargirl for why changing usernames is rejected, on this topic, which I think is a better rejection reason than “too confusing.” Perhaps some of the wording in 9.1 could be edited to mention it?

I think “too confusing” still fits, as that is essentially what @cheddargirl is describing — but there's no doubt that she is describing it in more detail. I've edited the list to include a link to this post.

gem1001 wrote:

2.8 can be removed as per the new ToS:

DarthVader4Life wrote:

I'd say ToS 2.8 is more so “This is what we mean by AI Output” than “These are the features of the AI we're adding.” Again, part of the purpose of the Terms of Service is to cover their legal bases. I will take their word that they do not wish to implement AI image generation to Scratch.

Agreed. As I've argued elsewhere, certainly the Creative Learning Assistant will display Scratch blocks for users; this is technically an example of “AI-generated images” (but probably not the same sort of “images” that others think of).

Without a clear understanding of what the AI will do, it's not clear to me that 2.8 is un-rejected.

0_009 wrote:

Why did you remove the pi reporter block in this list of rejected suggestions?????????????????

I think it was un-rejected at some point, if I remember correctly.

I'd like to send another reminder to everyone that this topic is not the place to debate why suggestions are rejected or to try to propose solutions for rejected suggestions. I went onto this topic this morning expecting that the several pages of unread posts from this week were about the changes to the Terms of Service, but most of the posts were actually arguing about whether 3D Scratch should be implemented.

It's one thing to ask for clarification as to why a suggestion was rejected; that is fine. But at the end of the day, 3D Scratch is rejected, full stop. Discussion and arguments about it in this thread are not going to accomplish anything, because this is just a list of suggestions that the Scratch Team has rejected.

If you have a solution to 3D Scratch, you are welcome to make a new thread in the Suggestions forum about it, while clearly explaining what the solution is and how it solves the problems that caused it to be rejected. If you would like to debate with others about whether or not a certain suggestion should be implemented, please use your profile comments for this debate, and not this thread.

deleted - did not mean to post this yet

The_Olcia wrote:

I'm not sure if image generation is rejected, bc of the recent TOS changes (someone said, that it might be only for legal reasons) and also this part of the article is a bit confusing:

What’s Next?

Because of the many challenges with AI image generation, we won’t be including it in Scratch any time soon, even on our Scratch Lab site. The Scratch Lab team will continue to keep an eye on progress in this area, as we tinker with it to help us understand the possibilities. We’re reflecting broadly on the role of AI in creative learning, guided by this essay from Mitch Resnick. And we’re exploring other uses of AI, beyond image generation (what if you could use AI to generate animations, music, or sound effects for your project? What if we had a block that could create new costumes from a prompt? What about generating chat responses, project ideas, or even Scratch code?). As always, we’ll be looking for ways we can improve Scratch that align with the vision of the Scratch Foundation: to spread creative, caring, collaborative, equitable approaches to coding and learning around the world.

The 3 highlighted parts are (kinda?) contradicting each other…
Could someone clarify?

i heard st is banning ai images

ametrine_ wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

Was that necessary?

yes

the poster needs to respond not you

ReuTestBen wrote:

The_Olcia wrote:

-snip-

i heard st is banning ai images

No, they aren't. TOS states, that you can't say ai generated output (I think they mean their AI's output) is made by you and you can't use Scratch or their AI's output to train any AI:

11. Prohibited Conduct. BY USING THE SERVICE, YOU AGREE NOT TO:

• 14. represent that Output was human-generated when it was not; or
  
• 15. use the Service or any Output to develop or train any AI or machine learning model.
  

edit1: I haven't checked enough… not “your', but ”any"… : |

xqwertyuiop wrote:

7.3 was a suggestion?

Yes, it was.

add A.I. for the staff members, according to someone, that the owner of scratch is forcing ai into here and the staff members are threatening that they will get fired.

draymondfu wrote:

add A.I. for the staff members, according to someone, that the owner of scratch is forcing ai into here and the staff members are threatening that they will get fired.

Unless there's firsthand sources for that, I wouldn't put much stock into it. And I doubt that Za-Chary would want to include rumors in an official list of rejected suggestions.

I just spent an hour reading this, really cool

Hello, the Scratch DACH Wiki Authors now have finished the localization for this list.
(Sorry if I've forgotten to tell it to you)
You can visit it here:
Deutsch
I have implemented it as an Wiki-Article so it can be edited by anyone with an Scratch-DACH-Wiki-Account.
It took me around 3 Weeks to do it all.

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

Hello, the Scratch DACH Wiki Authors now have finished the localization for this list.
(Sorry if I've forgotten to tell it to you)
You can visit it here:
Deutsch
I have implemented it as an Wiki-Article so it can be edited by anyone with an Scratch-DACH-Wiki-Account.
It took me around 3 Weeks to do it all.

dont let anyone edit it in case of vandilisim

ReuTestBen wrote:

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

Hello, the Scratch DACH Wiki Authors now have finished the localization for this list.
(Sorry if I've forgotten to tell it to you)
You can visit it here:
Deutsch
I have implemented it as an Wiki-Article so it can be edited by anyone with an Scratch-DACH-Wiki-Account.
It took me around 3 Weeks to do it all.

dont let anyone edit it in case of vandilisim

… 1st: The wiki is highly restricted
2nd: We can undo any changes
3rd: We do a lot of moderating

ReuTestBen wrote:

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

Hello, the Scratch DACH Wiki Authors now have finished the localization for this list.
(Sorry if I've forgotten to tell it to you)
You can visit it here:
Deutsch
I have implemented it as an Wiki-Article so it can be edited by anyone with an Scratch-DACH-Wiki-Account.
It took me around 3 Weeks to do it all.

dont let anyone edit it in case of vandilisim

… 1st: The wiki is highly restricted
2nd: We can undo any changes
3rd: We do a lot of moderating

Maybe move money blocks to 1.12 (or 1.10 to take the original place of the cat block suggestion) since it's no longer paired with digital currency in the list.

WigglyJoey wrote:

Maybe move money blocks to 1.12 (or 1.10 to take the original place of the cat block suggestion) since it's no longer paired with digital currency in the list.

I agree, it doesn't fit in “Account Information” in any way.

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

ReuTestBen wrote:

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

Hello, the Scratch DACH Wiki Authors now have finished the localization for this list.
(Sorry if I've forgotten to tell it to you)
You can visit it here:
Deutsch
I have implemented it as an Wiki-Article so it can be edited by anyone with an Scratch-DACH-Wiki-Account.
It took me around 3 Weeks to do it all.

dont let anyone edit it in case of vandilisim

… 1st: The wiki is highly restricted
2nd: We can undo any changes
3rd: We do a lot of moderating

bruh, wiki is strict

Za-Chary wrote:

I'd like to send another reminder to everyone that this topic is not the place to debate why suggestions are rejected or to try to propose solutions for rejected suggestions. I went onto this topic this morning expecting that the several pages of unread posts from this week were about the changes to the Terms of Service, but most of the posts were actually arguing about whether 3D Scratch should be implemented.

It's one thing to ask for clarification as to why a suggestion was rejected; that is fine. But at the end of the day, 3D Scratch is rejected, full stop. Discussion and arguments about it in this thread are not going to accomplish anything, because this is just a list of suggestions that the Scratch Team has rejected.

If you have a solution to 3D Scratch, you are welcome to make a new thread in the Suggestions forum about it, while clearly explaining what the solution is and how it solves the problems that caused it to be rejected. If you would like to debate with others about whether or not a certain suggestion should be implemented, please use your profile comments for this debate, and not this thread.

Most likely there is a dupe. And also, it may accomplish changing their minds. The Scratch Team likes to reject anything that is too hard, yet I see stuff in the editor that confuses beginners. 3D is part of many games.
Also, are your posts AI generated?

Please reject the ability to report classrooms

BikerAlt wrote:

Please reject the ability to report classrooms

This did exist, but was removed.