Now that the Community Guidelines have been updated, can we also update the Terms of Use? They were last updated in April 2016, and a lot has changed since then. Some example changes include:
1. Remove Appendix B.
ScratchX is dead and no longer relevant, especially since Flash was discontinued and Scratch Lab was introduced.

2. Change Section 5.3

Terms of Use Section 4.4 wrote:

You may only submit user-generated projects that were created with (1) the Scratch website editor or (2) an unmodified copy of the Scratch editor compiled from the source code described in Section 5.3. You may not upload any projects that were created, by you or by anyone else, with a modified version of the Scratch editor.

Makes sense right? Look at Section 5.3

Terms of Use Section 5.3 wrote:

The source code for Scratch 1.4 is available for download and subject to the copyright notice as indicated on the Scratch FAQ page.

This means anyone who was used the Scratch 2.0 or 3.0 offline editors and uploaded projects made with them to the website has violated the Terms of Use. Also, say someone uses Turbowarp Desktop to make a project, but they don't use any Turbowarp blocks. There is no way the ST can detect this, so it's unenforceable anyways.

3. You missed 3.2

4. Add thins about things that are not allowed. Examples include: cloud free chats, face reveals, and browser extensions.

This is not a complete list of what should be changed, but just some suggestions as to what should be changed.

dhuls wrote:

2. Change Section 5.3

Terms of Use Section 4.4 wrote:

You may only submit user-generated projects that were created with (1) the Scratch website editor or (2) an unmodified copy of the Scratch editor compiled from the source code described in Section 5.3. You may not upload any projects that were created, by you or by anyone else, with a modified version of the Scratch editor.

Makes sense right? Look at Section 5.3

Terms of Use Section 5.3 wrote:

The source code for Scratch 1.4 is available for download and subject to the copyright notice as indicated on the Scratch FAQ page.

This means anyone who was used the Scratch 2.0 or 3.0 offline editors and uploaded projects made with them to the website has violated the Terms of Use.

Duplicate: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/429152/

Besides, this isn't really the fact. You can upload projects from 2.0 and 3.0 offline editor. Just because the terms may be outdated, that doesn't mean that the meaning behind the rule hasn't become outdated.

The Scratch Team is most likely saying, “Don't upload projects from non-Scratch sources”

You won't be able to find anything supporting the claim that you can't upload 2.0 or 3.0 offline projects other than an outdated ToU. However, on the other hand you can find a LOT of evidence stating that you can upload 2.0 and 3.0 offline projects.

JollyWinter wrote:

Besides, this isn't really the fact. You can upload projects from 2.0 and 3.0 offline editor. Just because the terms may be outdated, that doesn't mean that the meaning behind the rule hasn't become outdated.

The Scratch Team is most likely saying, “Don't upload projects from non-Scratch sources”

You won't be able to find anything supporting the claim that you can't upload 2.0 or 3.0 offline projects other than an outdated ToU. However, on the other hand you can find a LOT of evidence stating that you can upload 2.0 and 3.0 offline projects.

That doesn't change the fact that the rules explicitly say “source code for Scratch 1.4”. The ToU should say what the rules are, not what they meant 8 years ago. Besides, not even the non-Scratch part is enforced; plenty of projects are made using Turbowarp or other Scratch mods.

fdreerf wrote:

–snip–

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be updated, however, the ToU does not have final say in matters. ToU does lay ground rules, but the Scratch Team can specially state something contrary, and so long as it is 100% legitimate, it overrides ToU.

The Scratch Team has stated that you can upload 2.0 and 3.0 projects made in the offline editor. They even encourage it.

The problem here is that people as stating it as fact that “you can't upload 2.0 or 3.0 offline projects,” which is just a blatant lie, whether on purpose or not. Doing research on the subject before suggesting change is a huge part of informing the public about an issue, and bringing the proper problem to light.

A simple re-phrase of the suggestion can make a HUGE difference. Instead of saying,
“you can't upload 2.0 or 3.0 offline projects because of 4.4 in the ToU,”
say something more like,
“4.4 in the ToU needs to be updated. It's outdated, stating that the only offline Scratch projects that can be shared have to be made in 1.4, not 2.0 or 3.0. However, this simply isn't the case.”

One jumps to conclusions, while the other points out the issue and states the current state of things. We can share 2.0 and 3.0 offline projects, and the request for change should reflect that.

JollyWinter wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

–snip–

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be updated, however, the ToU does not have final say in matters. ToU does lay ground rules, but the Scratch Team can specially state something contrary, and so long as it is 100% legitimate, it overrides ToU.

It doesn't “override” the ToU. What the ST says is not an overruling but an interpretation of the ToU, and thy still have the theoretical power to kick off anybody they don't like for using those two offline editors. That possibility, no matter how slim, should not be possible when actual legal stuff is on the table. Saying you can't use those editors is not a lie but what is legally allowed.

I think the Terms of Use already covers your fourth point on adding things that aren't allowed.

Terms of Use wrote:

7.1 Scratch has the right to suspend your account for violations of the Terms of Use or Community Guidelines. Repeat violators may have their account deleted. The Scratch Team reserves the sole right to determine what constitutes a violation of the Terms of Use or Community Guidelines. The Scratch Team also reserves the right to terminate any account used to circumvent prior enforcement of the Terms of Use.

So, based on this, we can use the announcements stating that cloud chats, face reveals, browser extensions, etc., and the Terms of Use already covers this.

Now, could we stand to put all these rules in a compact, easy-to-find place? Sure. But the Terms of Use does already indirectly say that cloud chats, etc. are not allowed, since it gives us the ability to decide what isn't allowed.

bump cause dupe

JollyWinter wrote:

Besides, this isn't really the fact. You can upload projects from 2.0 and 3.0 offline editor. Just because the terms may be outdated, that doesn't mean that the meaning behind the rule hasn't become outdated.

The Scratch Team is most likely saying, “Don't upload projects from non-Scratch sources”

You won't be able to find anything supporting the claim that you can't upload 2.0 or 3.0 offline projects other than an outdated ToU. However, on the other hand you can find a LOT of evidence stating that you can upload 2.0 and 3.0 offline projects.

The Scratch Terms of Use is a legal thing. It is meant to be taken at face-value.

The ToU is a legal document so it should absolutely be as accurate as possible to prevent confusion. It could stand to be updated, as it's been 8 years since the last update.

when on fire :: hat events
if <burning? ::sensing > then
do action [stop v], [drop v], and [roll v] :: motion
grab [water v] :: motion
fill [jug v] with [water v] :: motion
set [fire v] on [water v] :: motion
broadcast [fire dead v]
end

Hold on, the 3.2 and 3.5 thing still isn't fixed?
Edit: 3.5 is there now, but 3.2 isn't, though this could be fixed by just changing some of the numbers.

{what method did you use::control hat
answer on profile ::motion
} ::operators

Za-Chary wrote:

(#6)
Now, could we stand to put all these rules in a compact, easy-to-find place? Sure. But the Terms of Use does already indirectly say that cloud chats, etc. are not allowed, since it gives us the ability to decide what isn't allowed.

That's not an excuse for having clearer rules. I would even put the banned content list in the CGs. Not everyone reads the forums.

mumu245 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

(#6)
Now, could we stand to put all these rules in a compact, easy-to-find place? Sure. But the Terms of Use does already indirectly say that cloud chats, etc. are not allowed, since it gives us the ability to decide what isn't allowed.

That's not an excuse for having clearer rules. I would even put the banned content list in the CGs. Not everyone reads the forums.

If you give a specific list of things allowed and things not allowed, you’re saying “HEY! Here you go! Try this!”
They aren’t meant to be a complete list of things and shouldn’t be, they should simply be short outlines of the rules, making it obvious the ST has the final rules.
Besides, how would it be worded? How could they do it any better then they already did in the CG?