monstermash3 wrote:

Should increasing the 60 second rule be added?
Source: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/233637/?page=5#post-2731211

((x) ^ (y))

adobe-brick wrote:

I think a x^y operation would be really useful

((x) ^ (y))

LionHeart70 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

Should increasing the 60 second rule be added?
Source: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/233637/?page=5#post-2731211

Putting that in a part of the “removing 60 second rule” probably would be good, like my suggestion to add “dislike button” to this list was added under the “rating projects” thing.

Increasing The 60 Second Rule
60 - 120 second rule is already enough to prevent large amounts of spam. Besides, nobody likes it when they have to wait 3 minutes until they could post again, when a post they typed took only 80 seconds to make.

jvvg wrote:

11. Off-topic/misc. section on forums
One used to exist (available here), but it was shut down due to a large amount
of “flame wars” and difficulty moderating.

jvvg wrote:

2. Private messaging
When communication is public, people are more likely to be respectful because they know that everyone can see it. However, when posting PMs, people know that only the intended recipient can see it, so don't think as much before posting. Even if a “Flag PM” function is implemented, the Scratch Team currently does not have the resources to moderate it, because of the reason I said before there would be a lot of inappropriate/disrespectful messages

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

you should add “Advertisements” to the list, (here is why:https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/273464/?page=1#post-2777798)

Charles12310 wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

monstermash3 wrote:

Should increasing the 60 second rule be added?
Source: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/233637/?page=5#post-2731211

Putting that in a part of the “removing 60 second rule” probably would be good, like my suggestion to add “dislike button” to this list was added under the “rating projects” thing.

Increasing The 60 Second Rule
60 - 120 second rule is already enough to prevent large amounts of spam. Besides, nobody likes it when they have to wait 3 minutes until they could post again, when a post they typed took only 80 seconds to make.

The 60 second rule doesn't really have any problems, it's not too long but not too short either. Increasing it would reduce forum activity greatly, which isn't what we want. Plus, it'd cause a lot of mental pain and frustration among many users, which also isn't good.

cheddargirl wrote:

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project.

WolfCat67 wrote:

Add “Uploading Projects Anonymously” to the rejected list:

cheddargirl wrote:

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project.

cheddargirl wrote:

I would disagree on the idea of those types of sites being “completely fine” in the context of the Scratch Community Guidelines.

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project. Closing thread as rejected suggestion.

Charles12310 wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

Add “Uploading Projects Anonymously” to the rejected list:

cheddargirl wrote:

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project.

PROOF: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/273192/?page=2#post-2781584

cheddargirl wrote:

I would disagree on the idea of those types of sites being “completely fine” in the context of the Scratch Community Guidelines.

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project. Closing thread as rejected suggestion.

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

Charles12310 wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

Add “Uploading Projects Anonymously” to the rejected list:

cheddargirl wrote:

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project.

PROOF: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/273192/?page=2#post-2781584

cheddargirl wrote:

I would disagree on the idea of those types of sites being “completely fine” in the context of the Scratch Community Guidelines.

We want to keep the site safe and friendly or everyone. For us, that means being able to tell which-account-uploaded-what-project instead of heavily relying on an IP as the only traceable information for a project. Closing thread as rejected suggestion.

yes, it should be added,

oh, and advertisements

GameOnKid wrote:

hi also i want to say that a new thing be nice join my my team and help me find i way to do all the ideas surprise projects love it come help me do all our ideas at @gameonkid scratch.mit.edu

Charles12310 wrote:

-snip-
I feel Paddle2See misunderstood (not 100% accurate, please do not argue or complain, if this is wrong) about advertisements that are like ROBLOX, you know how they advertise projects/games and stuff?

I mean, Paddle2See did say it's fine to advertise because of Show and Tell and the motto, but Ads could promote other stuff including inappropriate content and scams. It would also ruin the website by look and community.

DanFish wrote:

I really don't think there should be custom reporters, because variables are basically the same thing.

 
<[] = []>

Itchy-10 wrote:

Maybe add the ‘putting the discuss button back’ thing?