Remove or update §4.4 of the ToU

NanoPIex

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:
i didn't know people actually read the terms of use

i know i didnt

i support btw, it doesn't make sense since that rule isn't enforced at all

AND WHO WOULD THINK TO REPORT AN EMOJI! I know because I got a message from the ST yo be respectful.

L

Maximouse

Bump.

This is Maximouse's signature. Learn more about signatures.

the2000

I made my latest project in the offline editor because it has less lag. I guess I'm not allowed to use Scratch anymore

Ihatr

Support, it makes no sense as to why it's worded this way and this would be nice for clarification.

this is a link

SausageMcSauce

The Terms of Use are heavily outdated (It was last modified in 2016 or something), so this could be implemented in a complete overhaul of the ToU.

Last edited by SausageMcSauce (Feb. 26, 2021 15:06:33)

My basement is open to the public from the 31st of March to the 2nd of April!

Click here to teleport to it!

the2000

SausageMcSauce wrote:
The Terms of Use are heavily outdated (It was last modified in 2016 or something)

Terms of Use wrote:
The Scratch Terms of Use was last updated: April 2016

fdreerf

SausageMcSauce wrote:
The Terms of Use are heavily outdated (It was last modified in 2016 or something), so this could be implemented in a complete overhaul of the ToU.

It's kinda best to update something like a ToU when such a glaring issue is found ASAP.

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

dertermenter

fdreerf wrote:
SausageMcSauce wrote:
The Terms of Use are heavily outdated (It was last modified in 2016 or something), so this could be implemented in a complete overhaul of the ToU.
It's kinda best to update something like a ToU when such a glaring issue is found ASAP.

I can't believe it is not being updated. This is as important as the community guidelines!

Thoughts on AFD on the forums

The2000 wrote:
All suggestions are unnecessary. If a suggestion is necessary then it's a bug report.

dertermenter wrote:
April Fools Day on the forums has been a repeated privilege, not an expectation

Ihatr

dertermenter wrote:
fdreerf wrote:
SausageMcSauce wrote:
The Terms of Use are heavily outdated (It was last modified in 2016 or something), so this could be implemented in a complete overhaul of the ToU.
It's kinda best to update something like a ToU when such a glaring issue is found ASAP.
I can't believe it is not being updated. This is as important as the community guidelines!

Eh, the ToU is probably way less read than the guidelines because it's a big blob of text that nobody feels like reading. I don't think it's that big of a deal that it needs to be updated ASAP, but it should probably be updated when there's time.

this is a link

fdreerf

Ihatr wrote:
Eh, the ToU is probably way less read than the guidelines because it's a big blob of text that nobody feels like reading. I don't think it's that big of a deal that it needs to be updated ASAP, but it should probably be updated when there's time.

It's a legal document. Scratch could theoretically ban everyone who used the 2.0 and 3.0 offline editors and nobody could do anything about it.

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

dertermenter

Ihatr wrote:
dertermenter wrote:
fdreerf wrote:
SausageMcSauce wrote:
The Terms of Use are heavily outdated (It was last modified in 2016 or something), so this could be implemented in a complete overhaul of the ToU.
It's kinda best to update something like a ToU when such a glaring issue is found ASAP.
I can't believe it is not being updated. This is as important as the community guidelines!
Eh, the ToU is probably way less read than the guidelines because it's a big blob of text that nobody feels like reading. I don't think it's that big of a deal that it needs to be updated ASAP, but it should probably be updated when there's time.

Does it matter if no one reads it? It is still a important document and those cannot have misleading information.

Thoughts on AFD on the forums

The2000 wrote:
All suggestions are unnecessary. If a suggestion is necessary then it's a bug report.

dertermenter wrote:
April Fools Day on the forums has been a repeated privilege, not an expectation

1Oaktree2

dertermenter wrote:
~Snip~

Does it matter if no one reads it? It is still a important document and those cannot have misleading information.
Well one thing I know is that I read it, and it's mostly not enforced. People go against it all the time.

the2000

fdreerf wrote:
Ihatr wrote:
Eh, the ToU is probably way less read than the guidelines because it's a big blob of text that nobody feels like reading. I don't think it's that big of a deal that it needs to be updated ASAP, but it should probably be updated when there's time.
It's a legal document. Scratch could theoretically ban everyone who used the 2.0 and 3.0 offline editors and nobody could do anything about it.

Yeah, that's how I feel. The Terms of Use are much, much. MUCH more important than the Community Guidelines. I think it would be better if they replaced the Community Guidelines with a “rules” page that just quotes the ToU entirely, because so many people just seem to think that the Community Guidelines are the be-all end-all rules page for Scratch.

Maximouse

fdreerf wrote:
Ihatr wrote:
Eh, the ToU is probably way less read than the guidelines because it's a big blob of text that nobody feels like reading. I don't think it's that big of a deal that it needs to be updated ASAP, but it should probably be updated when there's time.
It's a legal document. Scratch could theoretically ban everyone who used the 2.0 and 3.0 offline editors and nobody could do anything about it.

Nobody could do anything about it, even if this was fixed, because

Terms of Use wrote:
The Scratch Team reserves the sole right to determine what constitutes a violation of the Terms of Use or Community Guidelines.

This is Maximouse's signature. Learn more about signatures.

ninjaMAR

Support
They should redesign the whole ToU because it need a overhaul

fdreerf

Maximouse wrote:
Nobody could do anything about it, even if this was fixed, because
Terms of Use wrote:
The Scratch Team reserves the sole right to determine what constitutes a violation of the Terms of Use or Community Guidelines.

Note how it says “violation of the Terms of Use”. They can't just pull some unmentioned rule out of their carp and claim that's a violation, they need some rule to back it up. At least, that's what I think make sense I'm not a lawyer

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

imfh

Would it be a stretch to call the offline editor(s) an alternate version of “the Scratch website editor”?

Scratch to Pygame converter: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/600562/

Maximouse

imfh wrote:
Would it be a stretch to call the offline editor(s) an alternate version of “the Scratch website editor”?

Probably.

fdreerf wrote:
Note how it says “violation of the Terms of Use”. They can't just pull some unmentioned rule out of their carp and claim that's a violation, they need some rule to back it up. At least, that's what I think make sense I'm not a lawyer

I think this allows them to add new rules (browser extension policy) without changing the Terms of Use.

This is Maximouse's signature. Learn more about signatures.

banana439monkey

I support the removal or/and edit to this clause, however, ai would like to point out that terms of use is a legal contract between you, the user and scratch, the service. as a result, you need to write terms of use in a formal, legally-binding and unambiguous way, the reason ToU hasn't been updated is because lawyers are expensive

Banana

Very inactive user who has now become a maker.
If you reply to this post it would be greatly appreciated if you could comment the link to your post on my profile!!!

fdreerf

banana439monkey wrote:
the reason ToU hasn't been updated is because lawyers are expensive

Scratch was able to afford lawyers to sue some random dude for owning scratch.org before Scratch was even made and they somehow won indicating they could get really good lawyers, let alone a lawyer to update the ToU.

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

Discuss Scratch