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.

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

(#10671)
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.

0_009 wrote:

Can you merge #10.2 and #6.3 together, they seem pretty similar

TOLoRS wrote:

7.4 Relax or remove the extension policy
Browser extensions, userscripts, and userstyles are not allowed to be mentioned on Scratch as per the extension policy. Although such extensions may be useful, it is not easy to tell if the extension is harmful to your device. The Scratch Team believes that the potential risks and harm in allowing browser extensions outweigh the benefits, and are not looking for ways to improve this policy. This includes browser extensions, userscripts, and userstyles made by anyone, including Scratchers or well-known companies like Google.

wallaceji wrote:

Being banned from advertising extensions, I can completely understand that. But being banned from even mentioning them, I do not understand at all. Imagine if we couldn't mention any third-party websites, because they could have some sort of malware that harms our computer.

ametrine_ wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

Being banned from advertising extensions, I can completely understand that. But being banned from even mentioning them, I do not understand at all. Imagine if we couldn't mention any third-party websites, because they could have some sort of malware that harms our computer.

the problem with that is it's very hard for the filter to know if you're advertising the extension or just mentioning it (and even then, someone could get curious and search it up)

draymondfu wrote:

ametrine_ wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

Being banned from advertising extensions, I can completely understand that. But being banned from even mentioning them, I do not understand at all. Imagine if we couldn't mention any third-party websites, because they could have some sort of malware that harms our computer.

the problem with that is it's very hard for the filter to know if you're advertising the extension or just mentioning it (and even then, someone could get curious and search it up)

Technology has improved last time I checked so your statement is still false

CodeComet6161 wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

ametrine_ wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

Being banned from advertising extensions, I can completely understand that. But being banned from even mentioning them, I do not understand at all. Imagine if we couldn't mention any third-party websites, because they could have some sort of malware that harms our computer.

the problem with that is it's very hard for the filter to know if you're advertising the extension or just mentioning it (and even then, someone could get curious and search it up)

Technology has improved last time I checked so your statement is still false

Technology improved =!(sorry I don't have not equals) Technology the best

<not <[Technology improved] = [Technology the best]>>

CodeComet6161 wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

ametrine_ wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

Being banned from advertising extensions, I can completely understand that. But being banned from even mentioning them, I do not understand at all. Imagine if we couldn't mention any third-party websites, because they could have some sort of malware that harms our computer.

the problem with that is it's very hard for the filter to know if you're advertising the extension or just mentioning it (and even then, someone could get curious and search it up)

Technology has improved last time I checked so your statement is still false

Technology improved =!(sorry I don't have not equals) Technology the best

<not <[Technology improved] = [Technology the best]>> and <[Technology improved] = [Technology better, atleast to do easy work]>

draymondfu wrote:

CodeComet6161 wrote:

draymondfu wrote:

ametrine_ wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

Being banned from advertising extensions, I can completely understand that. But being banned from even mentioning them, I do not understand at all. Imagine if we couldn't mention any third-party websites, because they could have some sort of malware that harms our computer.

the problem with that is it's very hard for the filter to know if you're advertising the extension or just mentioning it (and even then, someone could get curious and search it up)

Technology has improved last time I checked so your statement is still false

Technology improved =!(sorry I don't have not equals) Technology the best

<not <[Technology improved] = [Technology the best]>> and <[Technology improved] = [Technology better, atleast to do easy work]>

draymondfu wrote:

Technology has improved last time I checked so your statement is still false

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

Tunibal_Scratcher wrote:

(#10671)
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.

BringUpMyPost

wallaceji wrote:

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.

Also, many of the rejected suggestions have solutions, but they are often ignored.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

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.

Also, many of the rejected suggestions have solutions, but they are often ignored.

If someone has a legitimate solution to a rejection, they can make a topic for it. The ST does view suggestions, but they can't implement very much because they are a small team with a limited budget that must spend a lot of resources on keeping what we already have functioning. They are also very cautious about adding new stuff to avoid increasing the amount that needs to be maintained and they do not like to add things in an unstable state. For blocks and simular editor additions in particular, they put a lot of effort into making sure everything works absolutely correct at implementation so they don't have to change them later and risk breaking projects.

While the ST does view suggestions, they rarely post on them because the ST posting in favor of a suggestion would get misinterpreted as “we are going to implement this” very easily, and posting negatively would too easily get interpreted as a rejection. Additionally, I should note that suggestions that are solutions to rejections are particularly likely to get posted on by the ST, because the ST often has to clarify whether such suggestions actually fix the issue that got the suggestion rejected. (when the suggester knows what they are talking about, they often do).

Catscratcher07 wrote:

wallaceji wrote:

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.

Also, many of the rejected suggestions have solutions, but they are often ignored.

If someone has a legitimate solution to a rejection, they can make a topic for it. The ST does view suggestions, but they can't implement very much because they are a small team with a limited budget that must spend a lot of resources on keeping what we already have functioning. They are also very cautious about adding new stuff to avoid increasing the amount that needs to be maintained and they do not like to add things in an unstable state. For blocks and simular editor additions in particular, they put a lot of effort into making sure everything works absolutely correct at implementation so they don't have to change them later and risk breaking projects.

While the ST does view suggestions, they rarely post on them because the ST posting in favor of a suggestion would get misinterpreted as “we are going to implement this” very easily, and posting negatively would too easily get interpreted as a rejection. Additionally, I should note that suggestions that are solutions to rejections are particularly likely to get posted on by the ST, because the ST often has to clarify whether such suggestions actually fix the issue that got the suggestion rejected. (when the suggester knows what they are talking about, they often do).