The Official List of Rejected Suggestions

DangerPuppy10

ihavenocluewhythisis wrote:
Xzillox wrote:
ihavenocluewhythisis wrote:
there is no way there is 3.0 scratch blocks
when @stopSign clicked::events hat
WAIT WHAT
ikr its so weirdly surreal
get games off the music trending category!

that came out of nowhere.

::cat

:) the red block returns, yet again :)

Last edited by DangerPuppy10 (Nov. 8, 2024 13:25:28)

cooIing

why you suggestion not rejected link: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788411/

Last edited by cooIing (Nov. 8, 2024 21:22:20)

8to16

cooIing wrote:
(#9146)
why you suggestion not rejected link: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788411/

cooiing is back
Anyways that topic is already dustbinned

Last edited by 8to16 (Nov. 8, 2024 22:17:32)

cooIing

what happnd to signature

8to16 wrote:
cooIing wrote:
(#9146)
why you suggestion not rejected link: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788411/
cooiing is back
Anyways that topic is already dustbinned

oh what.

AlejandrixKing245

I entered there and I got a 403 and I e-mailed ST about it

Za-Chary

Catscratcher07 wrote:
Wait, aren't former ST members unaffected by the 60 second rule? That would make that rejection statement technically incorrect.

No, former Scratch Team members still have the 60-second rule. I'm not sure where you got that information.

Catscratcher07 wrote:
I suppose that potential of being misquoted is a valid argument against being included on the list—I suppose that some sticky ought to mention that grouping a bunch of unrelated blocks together and calling them an advanced blocks extension is rejected and might as well be a suggestions list.

Exactly. Or if someone mentions “Advanced mode with the exponent block” … some may just shut it down saying that “advanced mode is rejected,” when the Scratcher's actual suggestion is really just an exponent block — which is not rejected.

-CatMeowMeow- wrote:
I don't care! Every half-decent forum has a polling function to allow for collecting much data. More users would take part in a poll than would respond to a thread on forum and results of a poll are easier to analyse. Even if Scratch Team didn't use it, it still would be key forum functionality which Scratch's forum is currently deprived of. The lack of it just makes the forum worse for no actual reason.

Because it's simply not the purpose of the Scratch forums. The purpose of the Scratch forums is mainly to help others use Scratch.

gem1001 wrote:
Should 2.10 be removed? Because this (a ST job listing for for Senior Back-End Engineer that is accessible from the Jobs link in the footer) says it will come in Scratch 4.0.

“Creative AI” is vague, and in particular does not suggest AI image generation. Until we know more information about what it means, I don't think I'll be removing 2.10.

8to16 wrote:
We should add a “Common Rejected Suggestions” to the top of the list to prevent people from having to search through all of those less commonly suggested ideas.

A nice idea, but I think we'd all have different ideas of what is considered “commonly suggested.” It also lengthens the list without much benefit in my opinion; searching for a suggestion is easy enough with CTRL + F.

Scratch137 wrote:
That's what the Table of Contents is for, I believe. The original post is already quite long, and adding another section to it would make the whole thing harder to navigate.

Interestingly enough, I also vaguely recall feedback that people tend not to use the Table of Contents anyway. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I agree the Table of Contents is enough.

8to16 wrote:
alpha_ape_13 wrote:
(#9114)
Roleplay in the forums. Most likely rejected? https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/787560/
I would consider that already in the list, as a roleplay forum is basically an off-topic forum

Right. That, and “no role-play in the forums” is really more of a rule than just a rejected suggestion. So I don't think I need to add it to the list since this is not meant to be a list of rules.

BigNate469 wrote:
It seems that the ST moved the blog post about experimenting with AI in Scratch from scratch.org back to Medium (the link in TOLORS no longer works). It's still at https://medium.com/scratchteam-blog/inside-scratch-lab-ai-image-generation-179f11bd921a

Thanks, I replaced the link.

I hear that scratch.org is temporarily removed for organizational purposes, and that it may come back someday. If it does, and the AI image generation blog post is hosted on scratch.org, I would like to know so that I can put the link back.

gem1001 wrote:
Now that 3.0 blocks have finally reached the forums, there can finally be a realistic ‘when stop sign clicked’ block!
when @stopSign clicked ::events hat

Thanks for the BBCode, I updated the list.

Consider “update the stop sign clicked block in the list” to be a suggestion that I rejected, but have now unrejected.

I have also updated the cat block to be more realistic, and I changed the shade of the comment block to be slightly higher contrast.

NamelessCat

It's kind of up for interpretation whether this counts as rejecting a suggestion or not, however I've seen quite a few people suggest reverting the follower/following order to how it was a few days ago (some examples would include this post and this post).

However, a few days ago @cheddargirl replied to a post I made in the QAS forum which seemed to imply we would not see this change reverted for the foreseeable future.

Catscratcher07

NamelessCat wrote:
It's kind of up for interpretation whether this counts as rejecting a suggestion or not, however I've seen quite a few people suggest reverting the follower/following order to how it was a few days ago (some examples would include this post and this post).

However, a few days ago @cheddargirl replied to a post I made in the QAS forum which seemed to imply we would not see this change reverted for the foreseeable future.

Based on the quote, it is very unlikely that it will be changed until profile pages are updated to 3.0, but it will probably be reconsidered then, I see no evidence that further discussion of a reversion should be closed as rejected.

NamelessCat

Catscratcher07 wrote:
NamelessCat wrote:
It's kind of up for interpretation whether this counts as rejecting a suggestion or not, however I've seen quite a few people suggest reverting the follower/following order to how it was a few days ago (some examples would include this post and this post).

However, a few days ago @cheddargirl replied to a post I made in the QAS forum which seemed to imply we would not see this change reverted for the foreseeable future.
Based on the quote, it is very unlikely that it will be changed until profile pages are updated to 3.0, but it will probably be reconsidered then, I see no evidence that further discussion of a reversion should be closed as rejected.

I see where you're coming from. Like I said, it's up for interpretation, personally I took what @cheddargirl said as her saying “we don't plan to revert the changes, however if we end up removing the follower/following rows it wouldn't matter anyways,” however I suppose it could also be interpreted as “we won't be considering this until at least pages are updated until 3.0”

zach20042013

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788481/ add this

PrincessIsza

zach20042013 wrote:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788481/ add this

when green flag clicked
forever
if <touching color [#1b37da] ?> then
say [Kill all the evil kumquats in the universe] for (2) secs

end
end

PrincessIsza

(long unnecessary quote removed by moderator - please don't spam)

What I mean by that ‘is’ word is that is the

<message [] received?>

rejected, and if yes, why?

Last edited by Paddle2See (Nov. 10, 2024 10:25:38)

PaperMarioFan2022

You quoted the OP, twice.
Which block are you asking about specifically? I'm on mobile rn.

NamelessCat

zach20042013 wrote:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788481/ add this

A duplicate topic and a rejected topic are 2 different things; the topic you linked was closed because one suggesting the same feature was found. Closing topics such as those helps to keep the discussion regarding a suggestion all in one place.

2016s4m29

PrincessIsza wrote:
Za-Chary wrote:
-snip-
is

Please dont quote the entire OP. thanks
king

Last edited by 2016s4m29 (Nov. 10, 2024 09:29:15)

PrincessIsza

NamelessCat wrote:
zach20042013 wrote:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788481/ add this
A duplicate topic and a rejected topic are 2 different things; the topic you linked was closed because one suggesting the same feature was found. Closing topics such as those helps to keep the discussion regarding a suggestion all in one place.

I aggree

Catscratcher07

PrincessIsza wrote:
(long unnecessary quote removed by moderator - please don't spam)

What I mean by that ‘is’ word is that is the
<message [] received?>
rejected, and if yes, why?

I do not believe that you have reworded the block sufficiently to clear up its ambiguity.

AlejandrixKing245

PrincessIsza wrote:
NamelessCat wrote:
zach20042013 wrote:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788481/ add this
A duplicate topic and a rejected topic are 2 different things; the topic you linked was closed because one suggesting the same feature was found. Closing topics such as those helps to keep the discussion regarding a suggestion all in one place.
I aggree

also agree

ihavenocluewhythisis

Za-Chary wrote:
long and unnecessary quote

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/788820/

Traded

The recently shared projects is already a thing
https://scratch.mit.edu/explore/projects/all/recent

Discuss Scratch