To people who don't support a block, just because “it can be abused”:
Firstly, more blocks can be abused than you think.
Yes, the “username” block is not the only one.

(current [hour v]) // Can be abused to let people only play at midnight.
<key (join [] []) pressed?> // Can be abused to let only people with some special keyboards play.
(language :: pen) // Can be abused to let only people who can speak a specific language play.*

*It's less severe than the other cases, because it can be changed very easily, but it's still not okay.

Secondly, if you see any abusing of blocks in a project, just report it. You can also (in most cases) look inside and edit the code.

Lastly, there is one thing that no one has pointed out yet: it's not the blocks themselves that are problematic, but the scripts (combinations of different blocks) they can be used in.
Why? Well, a block has a thousand uses.
Let me illustrate this with the “mouse x/y” block. You are probably wondering, “How can it be abused?”
It was used in a “See inside” detector (I won't tell you whose, to avoid naming and shaming). I could've included a link to it, but it was taken down. However, I understand the reason why: they (probably) did so because it could be used to prevent users from seeing inside. People could have used it to run a lag-creating script (using clones or lists, for example) to crash the page or make it lag so severely that the user couldn't even move the cursor on the screen.
Does that mean that the “mouse x/y” block should be removed? No. Plus, it has lots of other uses, which can make a project creative, beautiful, fun and unique.

So does a block deserve a “no support” just because it can be abused? No. So please think of other possible uses of the block, and then decide if you support or not.

Credit to mica43683 for giving me the idea of the “current hour” block.

WindOctahedron wrote:

Maybe you can add this there?

To people who don't support a block, just because “it can be abused”:
Firstly, more blocks can be abused than you think.
Yes, the “username” block is not the only one.

(current [hour v]) // Can be abused to let people only play at midnight.
<key (join [] []) pressed?> // Can be abused to let only people with some special keyboards play.
(language :: pen) // Can be abused to let only people who can speak a specific language play.*

*It's less severe than the other cases, because it can be changed very easily, but it's still not okay.

Secondly, if you see any abusing of blocks in a project, just report it. You can also (in most cases) look inside and edit the code.

Lastly, there is one thing that no one has pointed out yet: it's not the blocks themselves that are problematic, but the scripts (combinations of different blocks) they can be used in.
Why? Well, a block has a thousand uses.
Let me illustrate this with the “mouse x/y” block. You are probably wondering, “How can it be abused?”
It was used in the “See inside” detector. I could've included a link to it, but it was taken down. However, I understand the reason why: they (probably) did so because it could be used to prevent users from seeing inside. People could have used it to run a lag-creating script (using clones or lists, for example) to crash the page or make it lag so severely that the user couldn't even move the cursor on the screen.
Does that mean that the “mouse x/y” block should be removed? No. Plus, it has lots of other uses, which can make a project creative, beautiful, fun and unique.

So does a block deserve a “no support” just because it can be abused? No. So please think of other possible uses of the block, and then decide if you support or not.

Credit to mica43683 for giving me the idea of the “current hour” block.

Feel free to edit the text to your own preferences and needs.

Zerofile wrote:

WindOctahedron wrote:

-snip-

The thing is it doesn't matter if it is “abused”. A project that only lets you play at a certain hour should not be reported, sure it is impractical for *you* but the creator hasn't may not have intended it a wide range and does not deserve to have their project taken down.

Please don't report projects for this.

WindOctahedron wrote:

Maybe you can add this there?

To people who don't support a block, just because “it can be abused”:
Firstly, more blocks can be abused than you think.
Yes, the “username” block is not the only one.
-snip-

Feel free to edit the text to your own preferences and needs.

WindOctahedron wrote:

Zerofile wrote:

WindOctahedron wrote:

-snip-

The thing is it doesn't matter if it is “abused”. A project that only lets you play at a certain hour should not be reported, sure it is impractical for *you* but the creator hasn't may not have intended it a wide range and does not deserve to have their project taken down.

Please don't report projects for this.

The “current hour” block is always set to the project player's timezone, meaning that no matter where you live, it would always set to “0” at midnight.
And restricting a group of people from playing a project is violating the “Share” and “Be respectful” guidelines (you are hiding something and don't respect that some people don't stay up until midnight), so it should be reported.

-FasterThanLight- wrote:

Please, make sure that you know what the suggestion is about before trying to say Yes or No. I've seen some people out there who do things like this:

Person wrote:

I want this block:

open url [https://scratch.mit.edu/ v] [] :: events

SomeDude wrote:

No support, this would lead to the dreaded

open url [http://getavirusnow.com]

The OP said it would only work for Scratch URLs, yet the other person doesn't seem to care. I've seen this so much in these types of block suggestions.

-FasterThanLight- wrote:

I have something to add:

-FasterThanLight- wrote:

Please, make sure that you know what the suggestion is about before trying to say Yes or No. I've seen some people out there who do things like this:

Person wrote:

I want this block:

open url [https://scratch.mit.edu/ v] [] :: events

SomeDude wrote:

No support, this would lead to the dreaded

open url [http://getavirusnow.com]

The OP said it would only work for Scratch URLs, yet the other person doesn't seem to care. I've seen this so much in these types of block suggestions.

“Discussion”, that is, if you can call it that, like this only teaches newcomers to these forums that this is the norm here and that it is to be followed. It teaches them to not think about suggestions they are reading and either dismiss them using a tag line or say what everyone else has been saying, while maybe adding an ‘as per this’ to give some illusion of originality. It teaches them to blend in with everyone else. It teaches them to not deviate from convention.

Sigton wrote:

dude341 wrote:

1st suggestion: No support, what if people want say that they like/don't like the suggestion? I also like it when people say Support or No support because then I know if my suggestion is good or bad.

Then they say “I like this suggestion”! This whole support convention has done nothing to help the suggestions forum, in fact it has done exactly the opposite. It ahs turned this forum into a competition rather than an improvement scheme.

Sigton

When making a suggestion, please first think of at least two ways that this suggestion would be useful. If you can't think of two, or your use cases, or a situation where you would use it are very specific and might not apply to everybody, your suggestion might not be as useful as you think.

-FasterThanLight- wrote:

I have something to add…

When making a suggestion, please first think of at least two ways that this suggestion would be useful. If you can't think of two, or your use cases, or a situation where you would use it are very specific and might not apply to everybody, your suggestion might not be as useful as you think.

gaming271 wrote:

Add that DON'T put threads that are not even suggetions or are useless. I saw a forum post that literally was called “ ” (yes with a bunch of spaces and that is it) and when I went to it, there was nothing in the post! Just a blank post, with no text, which was just a waste.

We see rejected suggestions every day. However, I've seen this kind of replies to them multiple times:

rejected

No reasons are provided. The list rejected suggestions is not even mentioned, let alone linked to.

Imagine that you asked your older sibling for a cookie, but (s)he said “no”, and went away. You'd very likely be wondering why, or at most be angry.
Simply replying “rejected” is a similar scenario here, except that you are now the older sibling.
It results in confusion, or, even worse, “you are not even a member of the Scratch Team”, similarly to your reaction to the “no”.

So if you see a rejected suggestion, please provide a quote from this list, or at least explain why is it rejected in your own words and provide a link to the list.