The Official List of Rejected Suggestions

Jaydencat555

I know some extension we need : So not everyone thinkee a new extension for scratch 4.0 so I will show you what is it

Extension is
Face Detection!

These are the variations of blocks
Showing what it is
Hides it
Set transparency / alpha

And here’s the blocks!

Detect For a :: extension
Detect :: extension
Hide Camera :: extension
Set to (50) :: extension

Last edited by Jaydencat555 (Sept. 27, 2024 02:58:15)

Jaydencat555

My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.15.7, Safari 16.6, No Flash version detected

Last edited by Jaydencat555 (Sept. 27, 2024 02:58:55)

DifferentDance8

BluePixelLOLLL wrote:
Underwhite wrote:
Okk!!
if <(user) = [illegal]> then
report :: #ff0000
end

set [user v] to [blocked]
You are probably gonna be banned soon too. Don't blockspam.

Blockspammers wouldn't get banned unless what they blockspammed was really inappropiate

BluePixelLOLLL

DifferentDance8 wrote:
BluePixelLOLLL wrote:
Underwhite wrote:
Okk!!
if <(user) = [illegal]> then
report :: #ff0000
end

set [user v] to [blocked]
You are probably gonna be banned soon too. Don't blockspam.
Blockspammers wouldn't get banned unless what they blockspammed was really inappropiate

I got warned for doing this

<<<<<<>>>>>>

So I don't want that to happen to anyone else

Catscratcher07

Make a true equation with <(5-5) = (0)> format return tru just got rejected.

8to16

1080GBA wrote:
(#8920)
are these blocks
(if <> then [] else []::control)
When <>::events
rejected

when <> might be rejected because of ambiguity, but if <> then () else () is not rejected to my knowledge as of now.
Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between posts. NOOOOOO-

Ollie-Young

8to16 wrote:
1080GBA wrote:
(#8920)
are these blocks
(if <> then [] else []::control)
When <>::events
rejected
when <> might be rejected because of ambiguity, but if <> then () else () is not rejected to my knowledge as of now.
Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between posts. NOOOOOO-

Yeah the hat was implemented as:

When <> is true :: events hat

But I don’t think the other block would be implemented unless it was a boolean

8to16

Ollie-Young wrote:
(#8937)
But I don’t think the other block would be implemented unless it was a boolean

there's a trick in scratch-blocks that allows you to make certain reporters fit in boolean spaces, similar to how booleans fit in reporter spaces. this is already done with the “item # of list” block.

Ollie-Young

8to16 wrote:
Ollie-Young wrote:
(#8937)
But I don’t think the other block would be implemented unless it was a boolean
there's a trick in scratch-blocks that allows you to make certain reporters fit in boolean spaces, similar to how booleans fit in reporter spaces. this is already done with the “item # of list” block.

Huh.

8to16

Ollie-Young wrote:
(#8939)
Huh.

Basically go into the code for the scratch code editor engine (scratch-blocks) and change a couple of stuff. Then compile scratch-blocks and you can use variables in if-blocks.
I won't get into too much detail to avoid getting off-topic. (We already are…)
Anyways, let's get back on the rails.

Za-Chary

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:
Za-Chary wrote:
A-MARIO-PLAYER wrote:
A language filter block got rejected.
Hmm. What do others think?
Add it under 3.1 so people do not use it as a solution to chat projects with cloud.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I just added a bit of text about it.

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:
King of the page

Not anymore…

LaughabIe wrote:
in just 2024 alone i have found 4 topics suggesting a scratch “movie”
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/756975/
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/758997/
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/779855/
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/780506/

Thanks for finding those. I think I remember another one that was made a year or two ago, but I don't have a link to it.

LaughabIe wrote:
surprisingly, there are no more suggestions before that year which suggest a scratch theatrical release. so i am not quite sure where the burst came from.

these don’t quite feel like joke suggestions either; the users who made these topics did actually have some belief in their suggestions, but i think we can still agree they’re a bit humorous and difficult to take seriously, because it doesn’t feel like the kind of stuff the scratch foundation would do.

I agree with you. I wonder where these suggestions are coming from. I do think they are not joke suggestions. At the same time, I don't know if this is considered “infrequent” or “obvious” enough to not add it to the list. I'll keep scrolling and see if anyone else has thoughts about this.

teamsonic2011 wrote:
Maybe a link to the Turbowarp Packager should be added to 2.5

Do you have a link to a post where a Scratch Team member states that it is rejected?

Ollie-Young wrote:
Bro it’s the offical list of rejected suggestions, obviously rejected should count

Others explained it well, but another example was back when someone suggested “Remove the Report button.” If I added literally every rejected suggestion to this list, the list would be way too long, and that's not helpful if people have to scroll through suggestions that nobody is suggesting.

doggy_boi1 wrote:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/348410/?page=1#post-3518582 https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/729255/?page=7#post-8147068 advertisements are rejected. As in actual company adverts, unlike what's already included in tolors

Is this not already covered by 7.7?

doggy_boi1 wrote:
Is that referencing user made ads (like roblox) or real ads? It seems like its phrased in a way that makes it seem like the first

7.7 is about any ads that give any money to Scratchers or the Scratch Team. I'm not sure what a “user-made ad” is referring to, and I'm not sure how 7.7 is worded in a way that doesn't include the suggestion you linked.

MagicCoder330 wrote:
one must imagine Za-Chary happy

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/781322/

I'm a little surprised this one's not already explicitly on the list, so I'll add a note to 4.2 about it.

1080GBA wrote:
are these blocks
(if <> then [] else []::control)
When <>::events
rejected

Not to my knowledge; although I seem to remember something about “when” being made in development but then being removed for some reason.

Catscratcher07 wrote:
Make a true equation with <(5-5) = (0)> format return tru just got rejected.

There have been suggestions before about typing in an equation/expression and having Scratch automatically solve/evaluate it, right? I don't think this is the only time this has been suggested. I am interested in adding this to the list, but I'd like to see when else this has been suggested.

Scratch137

Za-Chary wrote:
(#8939)
Catscratcher07 wrote:
Make a true equation with <(5-5) = (0)> format return tru just got rejected.
There have been suggestions before about typing in an equation/expression and having Scratch automatically solve/evaluate it, right? I don't think this is the only time this has been suggested. I am interested in adding this to the list, but I'd like to see when else this has been suggested.

I was able to find this one from 2018.

starlightsparker

Scratch137 wrote:
I was able to find this one from 2018.

I don’t believe it should be added.
Two suggestions in 6 years is not quite enough.

BluePixelLOLLL

Scratch137 wrote:
Za-Chary wrote:
(#8939)
Catscratcher07 wrote:
Make a true equation with <(5-5) = (0)> format return tru just got rejected.
There have been suggestions before about typing in an equation/expression and having Scratch automatically solve/evaluate it, right? I don't think this is the only time this has been suggested. I am interested in adding this to the list, but I'd like to see when else this has been suggested.
I was able to find this one from 2018.

I don't think that's enough.

greentreebee

Scratch137 wrote:
Za-Chary wrote:
(#8939)
Catscratcher07 wrote:
Make a true equation with <(5-5) = (0)> format return tru just got rejected.
There have been suggestions before about typing in an equation/expression and having Scratch automatically solve/evaluate it, right? I don't think this is the only time this has been suggested. I am interested in adding this to the list, but I'd like to see when else this has been suggested.
I was able to find this one from 2018.

thats from 2018. is there a newer one?

8to16

Roman numeral blocks got rejected.

Last edited by 8to16 (Sept. 29, 2024 12:20:56)

breakfast_for_dinner

greentreebee wrote:
(#8943)
thats from 2018. is there a newer one?

it's still relevant today

8to16

8to16 wrote:
(#8944)
Roman numeral blocks got rejected.

8to16

8to16 wrote:
(#8946)
8to16 wrote:
(#8944)
Roman numeral blocks got rejected.

starlightsparker

8to16 wrote:
8to16 wrote:
(#8946)
8to16 wrote:
(#8944)
Roman numeral blocks got rejected.

Zach checks TOLoRS weekly. No need to repost just yet.

Discuss Scratch