Za-Chary wrote:

PizzaAddict4Life wrote:

I think that the “removing the 60 second rule” should also include “changing the 60 second rule”. I made a suggestion about that and it kinda went downhill and… yeah.

Do you have a link? I'm not sure if that particular suggestion was rejected, but I could look into it.

-snip-

Cometflight wrote:

Hi there! I wanted to ask a question about rejecting/confirming a suggestion. What does a suggestion need to make it rejected, and what does a suggestion need to make it confirmed?

Cometflight wrote:

Hi there! I wanted to ask a question about rejecting/confirming a suggestion. What does a suggestion need to make it rejected, and what does a suggestion need to make it confirmed?

Cometflight wrote:

Hi there! I wanted to ask a question about rejecting/confirming a suggestion. What does a suggestion need to make it rejected, and what does a suggestion need to make it confirmed?

PizzaAddict4Life wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

PizzaAddict4Life wrote:

I think that the “removing the 60 second rule” should also include “changing the 60 second rule”. I made a suggestion about that and it kinda went downhill and… yeah.

Do you have a link? I'm not sure if that particular suggestion was rejected, but I could look into it.

-snip-

Yup! Forgot it

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/400213/

• Added 1.11 on the “Forever if C block,” seeing as it has been suggested quite a few times now and was rejected for a reason that might not be obvious at first glance.
  
  
• Generalized 8.5 to “Recycle usernames.” This, of course, encompasses the previous suggestions asking to delete inactive accounts and delete name-sniping accounts. I found a link that serves as a pretty good reason why this is rejected, removing the other links provided in the past. Hopefully this makes everything more clear.
  
  
• Considered a very nice and well-written post by @WindOctahedron to normalize the use of the acronym TOLORS. The LORAP that was provided was particularly helpful. Ultimately I decided not to use it because it's not really needed, and I fear that it would just be confusing for new forum users. However, I am not discouraging the use of the acronym TOLORS in the forums, so you are welcome to use it as you see fit.
  
  
• Reconsidered adding “Forest button” to the list and decided not to, since it is not suggested often, and pretty easily workaroundable by using the Search bar at the top of the website. Similar to other “game kits,” as well as the aforementioned idea that “game kit” is not well-defined.
  
  
• Considered editing 10.1 to say “Change the 60 second rule,” but decided against it since that is not actually rejected. A recent suggestion about that was made, and closed by the topic owner, rather than rejected.
  
  
• Considered editing 2.7 to give more detail, but I cannot do this as I do not have more detail other than what I already stated and what is in the link provided. I think what is given is a sufficient reason for rejection — we don't have the resources to put Scratch on a game console.
  

Za-Chary* wrote:

• Also, could someone please check the link provided in 6.5 (Bring back the eggplant emoji) to make sure it actually works and sends you to a forum post?
  

Za-Chary wrote:

I've updated the list! Notes below:

• Added 1.11 on the “Forever if C block,” seeing as it has been suggested quite a few times now and was rejected for a reason that might not be obvious at first glance.
  
  
• Generalized 8.5 to “Recycle usernames.” This, of course, encompasses the previous suggestions asking to delete inactive accounts and delete name-sniping accounts. I found a link that serves as a pretty good reason why this is rejected, removing the other links provided in the past. Hopefully this makes everything more clear.
  
  
• Considered a very nice and well-written post by @WindOctahedron to normalize the use of the acronym TOLORS. The LORAP that was provided was particularly helpful. Ultimately I decided not to use it because it's not really needed, and I fear that it would just be confusing for new forum users. However, I am not discouraging the use of the acronym TOLORS in the forums, so you are welcome to use it as you see fit.
  
  
• Reconsidered adding “Forest button” to the list and decided not to, since it is not suggested often, and pretty easily workaroundable by using the Search bar at the top of the website. Similar to other “game kits,” as well as the aforementioned idea that “game kit” is not well-defined.
  
  
• Considered editing 10.1 to say “Change the 60 second rule,” but decided against it since that is not actually rejected. A recent suggestion about that was made, and closed by the topic owner, rather than rejected.
  
  
• Considered editing 2.7 to give more detail, but I cannot do this as I do not have more detail other than what I already stated and what is in the link provided. I think what is given is a sufficient reason for rejection — we don't have the resources to put Scratch on a game console.
  
  
• Also, could someone please check the link provided in 6.5 (Bring back the eggplant emoji) to make sure it actually works and sends you to a forum post?
  

Feedback is appreciated, as always!

Za-Chary wrote:

-snip-

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

Za-Chary* wrote:

• Also, could someone please check the link provided in 6.5 (Bring back the eggplant emoji) to make sure it actually works and sends you to a forum post?
  

Worked for me!

PizzaAddict4Life wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

-snip-

The link for 6.5 works

Gipthepig424 wrote:

Works for me.

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

By the way, as you're making updates, I feel as though the Scratch for video game consoles is very brief. I would suggest you to add on to it a bit more. I feel as though many users may not understand why it's rejected.

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

By the way, as you're making updates, I feel as though the Scratch for video game consoles is very brief. I would suggest you to add on to it a bit more. I feel as though many users may not understand why it's rejected.

….

Za-Chary wrote:

I've updated the list! Notes below:

• Added 1.11 on the “Forever if C block,” seeing as it has been suggested quite a few times now and was rejected for a reason that might not be obvious at first glance.
  
  
• Generalized 8.5 to “Recycle usernames.” This, of course, encompasses the previous suggestions asking to delete inactive accounts and delete name-sniping accounts. I found a link that serves as a pretty good reason why this is rejected, removing the other links provided in the past. Hopefully this makes everything more clear.
  
  
• Considered a very nice and well-written post by @WindOctahedron to normalize the use of the acronym TOLORS. The LORAP that was provided was particularly helpful. Ultimately I decided not to use it because it's not really needed, and I fear that it would just be confusing for new forum users. However, I am not discouraging the use of the acronym TOLORS in the forums, so you are welcome to use it as you see fit.
  
  
• Reconsidered adding “Forest button” to the list and decided not to, since it is not suggested often, and pretty easily workaroundable by using the Search bar at the top of the website. Similar to other “game kits,” as well as the aforementioned idea that “game kit” is not well-defined.
  
  
• Considered editing 10.1 to say “Change the 60 second rule,” but decided against it since that is not actually rejected. A recent suggestion about that was made, and closed by the topic owner, rather than rejected.
  
  
• Considered editing 2.7 to give more detail, but I cannot do this as I do not have more detail other than what I already stated and what is in the link provided. I think what is given is a sufficient reason for rejection — we don't have the resources to put Scratch on a game console.
  

Feedback is appreciated, as always!

Za-Chary wrote:

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

By the way, as you're making updates, I feel as though the Scratch for video game consoles is very brief. I would suggest you to add on to it a bit more. I feel as though many users may not understand why it's rejected.

….

I already considered it… please see the post I made.

PizzaAddict4Life wrote:

Cometflight wrote:

Hi there! I wanted to ask a question about rejecting/confirming a suggestion. What does a suggestion need to make it rejected, and what does a suggestion need to make it confirmed?

Rejected suggestions are here

I am not sure if your suggestion can be “confirmed” though, but anything that is here is rejected

M1mikyu wrote:

Za-chary, is it normal to feel bad when our suggestion gets rejected? Sometimes when I see that a ST member closed my topic and rejected it I just feel really bad that they didn’t like my idea and said no. It sort of gives the feeling that I did something wrong or broke the rules…. maybe the ST should rephrase the “suggestion is rejected” message to make it seem less threatening(not the right word but close enough). Same with the duplicate message.