CaptFrIEdshrimp wrote:

unisparks8 wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/870490/?page=3#post-9343223 found this

You mean my topic I abandoned and given up on?

Im just doing my job

Should I be the new owner of TIAULORS in 2027?
Also should you change the part in 9.1 where it says “changing @Za-Chary to @ZA-CHARY” into “changing @Catscratcher07 to @CATSCRATCHER07”?

mariofan864 wrote:

Should I be the new owner of TIAULORS in 2027?
Also should you change the part in 9.1 where it says “changing @Za-Chary to @ZA-CHARY” into “changing @Catscratcher07 to @CATSCRATCHER07”?

1, It depends if the user wants to continue hosting this
2, agreed, people would think it's nameshaming if it isn't changed

WigglyJoey wrote:

mariofan864 wrote:

Should I be the new owner of TIAULORS in 2027?
Also should you change the part in 9.1 where it says “changing @Za-Chary to @ZA-CHARY” into “changing @Catscratcher07 to @CATSCRATCHER07”?

1, It depends if the user wants to continue hosting this
2, agreed, people would think it's nameshaming if it isn't changed

It should be this

The list should have wrote:

however, changing @ExampleUser to @EXAMPLEUSER is NOT rejected.

Or something like that.
That way, we don’t have to worry about the current owner.

mariofan864 wrote:

(#122)
Should I be the new owner of TIAULORS in 2027?
Also should you change the part in 9.1 where it says “changing @Za-Chary to @ZA-CHARY” into “changing @Catscratcher07 to @CATSCRATCHER07”?

they prolly aint gonna switch ownership until scratch 4.0 comes out

@CatScratcher07, can we share projects that tell how our suggestion works?

if <[make how suggestion works project?] = [yes]> then
create project
end

define create project
broadcast [create project v]

AdaVesta_ wrote:

bitmap_caketin wrote:

Yes, I would remove the remix tree: I don't think that that was a rejection, more of an explanation of the removal.

agreed.

please no

OMGCHOVIE2013 wrote:

AdaVesta_ wrote:

bitmap_caketin wrote:

Yes, I would remove the remix tree: I don't think that that was a rejection, more of an explanation of the removal.

agreed.

please no

It's not removing the remix tree, it's removing the entry about remix trees being rejected.

NutOfCoco wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/899447/

Was that entirely helpful?

Knowing to make suggestion can help make a better community.
But a problem with the community are users who often not allow commenting.

So we don't know the reason why they don't allow commenting.
Well, that's because they don't say why, and they think they don't want users to advertise.

So that's why I think it is maybe rude to make this.

unisparks8 wrote:

CaptFrIEdshrimp wrote:

unisparks8 wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/870490/?page=3#post-9343223 found this

You mean my topic I abandoned and given up on?

Im just doing my job

Thanks for the link. I don't think this is a frequent enough suggestion to warrant being on the list, but once we have a functioning forums search engine, feel free to find older instances of it to see if it is frequent.

WigglyJoey wrote:

mariofan864 wrote:

Should I be the new owner of TIAULORS in 2027?
Also should you change the part in 9.1 where it says “changing @Za-Chary to @ZA-CHARY” into “changing @Catscratcher07 to @CATSCRATCHER07”?

1, It depends if the user wants to continue hosting this
2, agreed, people would think it's nameshaming if it isn't changed

I don't think anyone will think it is name-and-shaming, but I will change it.

mariofan864 wrote:

Should I be the new owner of TIAULORS in 2027?

If you remain active and helpful here for a long time, then maybe in the distant future, but 2027 would be too soon.

OMGCHOVIE2013 wrote:

@CatScratcher07, can we share projects that tell how our suggestion works?
~snip~

Yes.

NutOfCoco wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/899447/

I'm not sure that is a serious suggestion. I don't think it needs to be on the list at this time.

Davyd_The_Owl wrote:

Knowing to make suggestion can help make a better community.
But a problem with the community are users who often not allow commenting.

So we don't know the reason why they don't allow commenting.
Well, that's because they don't say why, and they think they don't want users to advertise.

So that's why I think it is maybe rude to make this.

If someone wants to turn off comments, that is their own choice, and does not need a public explanation. That is not a problem, and if you think it is, make a new suggestion for it, don't post about it here.

Nvm, owner of the list already changed it