Black_Rock_Pride wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

PLEASE NOTE: A lot of this is copied from the old topics.
I know that a topic like this already exists, but it has become very inactive recently and is also fairly incomplete.


33: Banning certain franchises:
The Scratch Team will not ban any franchise as a whole unless said franchise contains shockingly inappropriate content and little to no clean content, and would be virtually impossible to make anything appropriate out of it. The reason that certain franchises such as FNAF have some restrictions is because they are very popular and had many inappropriate projects made about them (see number 17), however this is a fairly rare scenario and there's no need to do it with most franchises unless they suddenly become very popular on the site with many inappropriate projects about them coming in too.

Paddle explains it better than me, though:

Paddle2See wrote:

As with so many of these “Ban some game or movie” suggestions, we feel that it is possible to make Scratch projects that are appropriate for Scratch with the material. Also, we have not had a large number of inappropriate projects based around Star Wars.

Please use the Report button on projects that you feel are not okay for Scratch - but we don't see a need to put specific restrictions on Star Wars based projects at this time.

)

Nice list ;) Why would Star Wars be inappropriate? I mean it is kinda scary, but . . . . . (Sorry I watched Star Wars and I found it not scary/inappropriate.)

There was a suggestion someone made a while ago to ban Star Wars, possibly because the movies are generally rated PG-13. I used this as an example because this was when a moderator explained they won't be adding the suggestion to ban/put restrictions on a specific franchise unless it becomes very popular and many users create inappropriate projects about it, or if the franchise is extremely inappropriate and can not be made appropriate.

LionHeart70 wrote:

10. Changing your username:
It would be very difficult to keep track of people if they could change usernames, and users would likely be confused when someone they follow changes their username. Additionally, that would add another layer of difficulty to the moderation of the website, making it harder for the Scratch Team to follow what a user is doing, and could be very hard for the servers overall. However, the Scratch Team has occasionally changed users' usernames by their request, but it's only been in some rare cases, such as when their username contains offensive content. Nicknames will most likely not be added either for very similar reasons, and could potentially be even more confusing.

Just because people can't change their names doesn't mean they can't re-register tons of times. Ever seen anyone have this thing on their about me saying:

Past: @username
Present: @username
Future: @username

This is a strange phenomenon I have encountered where people comstantly change account, and sometimes on top of that make alt accounts as well, and as such become very hard to track.

BTW what's a sticky?

(JOKE!) ban the rejected suggestions sticky (JOKE!)

Alzter wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

10. Changing your username:
It would be very difficult to keep track of people if they could change usernames, and users would likely be confused when someone they follow changes their username. Additionally, that would add another layer of difficulty to the moderation of the website, making it harder for the Scratch Team to follow what a user is doing, and could be very hard for the servers overall. However, the Scratch Team has occasionally changed users' usernames by their request, but it's only been in some rare cases, such as when their username contains offensive content. Nicknames will most likely not be added either for very similar reasons, and could potentially be even more confusing.

Just because people can't change their names doesn't mean they can't re-register tons of times. Ever seen anyone have this thing on their about me saying:

Past: @username
Present: @username
Future: @username

This is a strange phenomenon I have encountered where people comstantly change account, and sometimes on top of that make alt accounts as well, and as such become very hard to track.

I believe users who change accounts a lot/make ALT accounts to get around moderation can be banned. I rarely see users doing what you described.

I think that when your commenting you should only do nice message's.I mean like, before you post the comment you check that it is not a mean comment. 2 thing's could happen:1, if one of your follower's found out about your mean comment they may think"I need to agree if I am gonna be that guy's follower!'2 The poor person who followed you would have more follower's and it would pass on! so if there is something we can all do it's post nice comment's! One day I was just about to comment on one of my most fav project's and then what did I see? commenting on that project had been band because of all the hate it was given! I was so angry! I wondered who gave that nasty comment. To take my mind of it I worked on a project. But it did not help at all. Everybody (even not on scratch.) should help bring this to an end. Everybody should watch there word's.

TheSunniestBunny wrote:

I think that when your commenting you should only do nice message's.I mean like, before you post the comment you check that it is not a mean comment. 2 thing's could happen:1, if one of your follower's found out about your mean comment they may think"I need to agree if I am gonna be that guy's follower!'2 The poor person who followed you would have more follower's and it would pass on! so if there is something we can all do it's post nice comment's! One day I was just about to comment on one of my most fav project's and then what did I see? commenting on that project had been band because of all the hate it was given! I was so angry! I wondered who gave that nasty comment. To take my mind of it I worked on a project. But it did not help at all. Everybody (even not on scratch.) should help bring this to an end. Everybody should watch there word's.

Um.. okay. That'd be nearly impossible to do - would we block all words like “stupid” or “annoying”, even if not being used in a disrespectful way? For instance, if you were having a conversation with someone and you said something like “I'm currently working on a drawing, but my stupid computer keeps crashing”, or “Oh, I've played that game before! I've tried to defeat that enemy, it's very annoying.” - in these cases, words like “stupid” or “annoying” are blocked even when they're not directed at anyone. If it helps anything, you can not talk about groups of people and call them “stupid” (in this context, I mean groups as in racial groups, genders/gender identities, sexualities/sexual orientations, people who have disabilities, religions, etc. - even perfectly harmless things they can still technically control, such as hobbies, lifestyle choices, etc.). For instance, that doesn't mean you can say stuff like “Members of X religion are mean!”, “People who like riding bikes are stupid!”, “People of X race are annoying!”, etc.
If this is a suggestion that the community as a whole should check what they're saying online, I assume most people have the common sense to know “being mean is bad”. Those who don't are likely deliberately acting this way, and oftentimes telling them “stop doing that” won't really help.
Also, how do you know that the project's comments were turned off because of offensive comments? Did the owner of the project say so in the description/most recent comment? If not, it's just likely for personal preference.
Also, this sounds like a suggestion and in red at the top of the page I said “Please do not suggest things here”, with a reason as to why.

I just read all of that and now my brain feels like mush
eeeh

when green flag clicked
change [Brain Mush v] effect by (999999999)

DiggoryDog wrote:

I just read all of that and now my brain feels like mush
eeeh

when green flag clicked
change [Brain Mush v] effect by (999999999)

Okay.. that's good to know..

LionHeart70 wrote:

Alzter wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

10. Changing your username:
It would be very difficult to keep track of people if they could change usernames, and users would likely be confused when someone they follow changes their username. Additionally, that would add another layer of difficulty to the moderation of the website, making it harder for the Scratch Team to follow what a user is doing, and could be very hard for the servers overall. However, the Scratch Team has occasionally changed users' usernames by their request, but it's only been in some rare cases, such as when their username contains offensive content. Nicknames will most likely not be added either for very similar reasons, and could potentially be even more confusing.

Just because people can't change their names doesn't mean they can't re-register tons of times. Ever seen anyone have this thing on their about me saying:

Past: @username
Present: @username
Future: @username

This is a strange phenomenon I have encountered where people comstantly change account, and sometimes on top of that make alt accounts as well, and as such become very hard to track.

I believe users who change accounts a lot/make ALT accounts to get around moderation can be banned. I rarely see users doing what you described.

What about @MegaApuTurkUltra?

I feel like I already sorta asked about this, although maybe not clearly enough. Is “a skin that changes the 3.0 editor design to 2.0” rejected?

thisandagain wrote:

We are not considering a “skin” that switches between the look of 2.0 and 3.0, but we may consider being able to toggle which side of the screen the stage is on.

I asked you about the stage switching before, and you said it might not be rejected, since it is being “considered”.

However, a skin that switches between the look of 2.0 and 3.0 seems to be rejected, since it's not even being considered.

What do you think?

(Can't comment on your profile, so I figured I'd try to contact you here.)

Za-Chary wrote:

I feel like I already sorta asked about this, although maybe not clearly enough. Is “a skin that changes the 3.0 editor design to 2.0” rejected?

thisandagain wrote:

We are not considering a “skin” that switches between the look of 2.0 and 3.0, but we may consider being able to toggle which side of the screen the stage is on.

I asked you about the stage switching before, and you said it might not be rejected, since it is being “considered”.

However, a skin that switches between the look of 2.0 and 3.0 seems to be rejected, since it's not even being considered.

What do you think?

(Can't comment on your profile, so I figured I'd try to contact you here.)

Hmm.. I'm not sure. They said they aren't considering it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a rejected suggestion right now. I suppose we'll have to wait.
also, the reason my comments are closed is because of the situation i described in the “i'm in a somewhat difficult situation” topic..

LionHeart70 wrote:

Hmm.. I'm not sure. They said they aren't considering it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a rejected suggestion right now. I suppose we'll have to wait.
also, the reason my comments are closed is because of the situation i described in the “i'm in a somewhat difficult situation” topic..

Fair enough, that makes sense. Until then, I'll just keep quoting @thisandagain whenever someone suggests that.

I hope things are going alright for you.

I think you can maybe officially add “Switch between 2.0 and 3.0” to the rejected suggestions: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/337098/

Although I'm not exactly sure if this refers to the “skin” option or switching the actual interfaces.

Za-Chary wrote:

I think you can maybe officially add “Switch between 2.0 and 3.0” to the rejected suggestions: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/337098/

Although I'm not exactly sure if this refers to the “skin” option or switching the actual interfaces.

I guess maybe I'll add it when it's confirmed what it actually means.

I asked @Paddle2See about it; here was his response:

Paddle2See wrote:

The way I read it was that they wanted to be able to switch between 2.0 and 3.0, as far as the look and feel of the editor goes. To me that, sounds like a lot of complexity, both for the coders, but also for anybody trying to write documentation or teach Scratch.

Za-Chary wrote:

I asked @Paddle2See about it; here was his response:

Paddle2See wrote:

The way I read it was that they wanted to be able to switch between 2.0 and 3.0, as far as the look and feel of the editor goes. To me that, sounds like a lot of complexity, both for the coders, but also for anybody trying to write documentation or teach Scratch.

Ah.. okay.
I'm guessing I can add this to the list, but I'll call it something like “Switching to older versions of Scratch” instead.

I found a new rejected suggestion: “removing all trackers from the website”

the proof is here: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/329463/?page=2#post-3380763

LionHeart70 wrote:

41: Being able to set the editor to the older versions of Scratch:
While many users may find it nice to be able to choose what layout they want, it's unfortunately rather complicated. If you don't like the editor, you can download the offline editor (although this may not necessarily work depending on what type of device you have - for instance, I use a Chromebook and can't download it). 3.0 still has its bugs/missing features and the Scratch Team is working on fixing them.

42: Reverting back to older versions of Scratch:
Too late to do that now. Also, Scratch has to change sometimes in order to accommodate other changes, such as the discontinuation of Flash. They're still working out the bugs and missing features of 3.0 - don't worry!

I think these two are too simular, since being able to set the editor to older versions is kinda like reverting back, so one of these to should become part of the other

XayCraft360 wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

41: Being able to set the editor to the older versions of Scratch:
While many users may find it nice to be able to choose what layout they want, it's unfortunately rather complicated. If you don't like the editor, you can download the offline editor (although this may not necessarily work depending on what type of device you have - for instance, I use a Chromebook and can't download it). 3.0 still has its bugs/missing features and the Scratch Team is working on fixing them.

42: Reverting back to older versions of Scratch:
Too late to do that now. Also, Scratch has to change sometimes in order to accommodate other changes, such as the discontinuation of Flash. They're still working out the bugs and missing features of 3.0 - don't worry!

I think these two are too simular, since being able to set the editor to older versions is kinda like reverting back, so one of these to should become part of the other

I think #41 refers to a “skin” to change the look of the editor, while #42 refers to “bring back Scratch 2.0” or something similar. They appear to be different suggestions as a result.

Perhaps they could be merged, though, as long as all the information is kept.