PizzaPizza72 wrote:

That's nice! I can't wait for Incubator!

PizzaPizza72 wrote:

I am very excited for Incubator!

Looky1173 wrote:

Incubator update: Changing the cover image of a jam is now possible

Looky1173 wrote:

Incubator update: Changing the cover image of a jam is now possible

PyraEthan12 wrote:

I thought it already was

Looky1173 wrote:

Incubator update: Changing the cover image of a jam is now possible

Looky1173 wrote:

I wrote:
Dear Scratch Team,

I would like to inquire about my last message (addressing the censure of Scratch Auth) that I have sent through Contact Us 10 days ago. It has already happened to me that a message of mine appeared to go through Contact Us and I only learnt months later that apparently it did not go through at all.

This matter not only concerns me but hundreds of Scratchers as well, who rely on Scratch Auth to interact with the diverse open-source websites build around Scratch by the community.

Please see my previous message attached below in case it was not correctly delivered:

——-
Dear Scratch Team,

I have received alerts that Scratch Auth and Itinerary were censured, including the Scratch Auth project (https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/676911023/). The forum topic for Scratch Auth (https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/597434/) was dustbinned as well.

Scratch Auth is not a link shortener, nor a browser extension, nor does it promote userscripts, nor does it lead to inappropriate material, nor does it reveal personal information or social media accounts, nor does it have unmoderated chat features. I have made a forum topic to clarify the workings of Scratch Auth and Itinerary: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/609816/

However, several users have drawn my attention to the Google Form that was previously featured on the Scratch Auth website. It was used to get the opinion of the community on whether they would like me to develop Itinerary (https://itinerary.eu.org) further, a site that could be used to create fun Scratch game jams. I understand that Google Forms could potentially lead to private messaging and thus I have taken the form down. To prove that I have NOT gathered any personal information, please refer to the data collected by the form: [redacted]

I apologise for publishing the form and I promise I will not do such things in the future. If the form was the reasoning behind censoring Scratch Auth, then I ask the Team to revert their actions because I have removed it. Thousands of Scratchers as well as some independent Scratch services depend on Scratch Auth, and censoring it restricts them. If the issue was not related to the form, please provide an explanation because the alerts I received did not help me identify the problem.

Finally, I would like to inquire about why Itinerary was censured as well. Itinerary purposefully has a friendly look, and it is strictly moderated. To create a game jam, a Scratcher would have to ask me on my profile. Also, I constantly review each jam for inappropriate descriptions and images. Thus far, I have found none.

Thank you for processing my message.
——-

The Scratch Team wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for reaching out. We do not allow links to external sites that have even the potential to share private information or chat functions, regardless of how well you intend to moderate. We cannot moderate offsite, so we just do not allow it. Even though your site is Scratch-based, it is not affiliated and not under our purview. Asking Scratchers to connect offsite is forbidden, especially when it's a user-created site that has no moderation or TOS.

I hope you understand our position on this and why the entire concept is inappropriate for Scratch.

Thanks,
Scratch Team

I am utterly disappointed, here is why:

• The Scratch Team failed to address several questions of mine, such as why was Scratch Auth censored;
  
• My websites conform to all of the points written by the Scratch Team required to share links to personal websites;
  
• "the entire concept is inappropriate for Scratch" - Does this mean that Aviate, Itinerary, Magnifier, Ocular, Scratch Auth, Scratch Tutorials, Incubator, ScratchStats, and many more websites made by Scratchers are not appropriate for Scratch?
  
• Scratch's ToU declares that "8. Third Party Websites, 8.1 Content on Scratch, including user-generated content, may include links to third party websites." - Therefore, I don't see how Scratch Auth could be considered an exception, provided that it does not violate the ToU, the Community Guidelines and adheres to the Privacy Policy as well as to the topics in the Announcements forum. I spent an hour verifying all this.
  

TheSmartGuy1234 wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

I wrote:
Dear Scratch Team,

I would like to inquire about my last message (addressing the censure of Scratch Auth) that I have sent through Contact Us 10 days ago. It has already happened to me that a message of mine appeared to go through Contact Us and I only learnt months later that apparently it did not go through at all.

This matter not only concerns me but hundreds of Scratchers as well, who rely on Scratch Auth to interact with the diverse open-source websites build around Scratch by the community.

Please see my previous message attached below in case it was not correctly delivered:

——-
Dear Scratch Team,

I have received alerts that Scratch Auth and Itinerary were censured, including the Scratch Auth project (https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/676911023/). The forum topic for Scratch Auth (https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/597434/) was dustbinned as well.

Scratch Auth is not a link shortener, nor a browser extension, nor does it promote userscripts, nor does it lead to inappropriate material, nor does it reveal personal information or social media accounts, nor does it have unmoderated chat features. I have made a forum topic to clarify the workings of Scratch Auth and Itinerary: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/609816/

However, several users have drawn my attention to the Google Form that was previously featured on the Scratch Auth website. It was used to get the opinion of the community on whether they would like me to develop Itinerary (https://itinerary.eu.org) further, a site that could be used to create fun Scratch game jams. I understand that Google Forms could potentially lead to private messaging and thus I have taken the form down. To prove that I have NOT gathered any personal information, please refer to the data collected by the form: [redacted]

I apologise for publishing the form and I promise I will not do such things in the future. If the form was the reasoning behind censoring Scratch Auth, then I ask the Team to revert their actions because I have removed it. Thousands of Scratchers as well as some independent Scratch services depend on Scratch Auth, and censoring it restricts them. If the issue was not related to the form, please provide an explanation because the alerts I received did not help me identify the problem.

Finally, I would like to inquire about why Itinerary was censured as well. Itinerary purposefully has a friendly look, and it is strictly moderated. To create a game jam, a Scratcher would have to ask me on my profile. Also, I constantly review each jam for inappropriate descriptions and images. Thus far, I have found none.

Thank you for processing my message.
——-

The Scratch Team wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for reaching out. We do not allow links to external sites that have even the potential to share private information or chat functions, regardless of how well you intend to moderate. We cannot moderate offsite, so we just do not allow it. Even though your site is Scratch-based, it is not affiliated and not under our purview. Asking Scratchers to connect offsite is forbidden, especially when it's a user-created site that has no moderation or TOS.

I hope you understand our position on this and why the entire concept is inappropriate for Scratch.

Thanks,
Scratch Team

I am utterly disappointed, here is why:

• The Scratch Team failed to address several questions of mine, such as why was Scratch Auth censored;
  
• My websites conform to all of the points written by the Scratch Team required to share links to personal websites;
  
• "the entire concept is inappropriate for Scratch" - Does this mean that Aviate, Itinerary, Magnifier, Ocular, Scratch Auth, Scratch Tutorials, Incubator, ScratchStats, and many more websites made by Scratchers are not appropriate for Scratch?
  
• Scratch's ToU declares that "8. Third Party Websites, 8.1 Content on Scratch, including user-generated content, may include links to third party websites." - Therefore, I don't see how Scratch Auth could be considered an exception, provided that it does not violate the ToU, the Community Guidelines and adheres to the Privacy Policy as well as to the topics in the Announcements forum. I spent an hour verifying all this.
  

Ahhh, yes. The ST is trying to… BAN EVERY WEBSITE EXCEPT FOR SCRATCH?!?!?! THATS WRECKING THE INTERNET!!!

P.S. wrote this on IE.

TheSmartGuy1234 wrote:

P.S. wrote this on IE.

Looky1173 wrote:

The next step is getting the Settings tab done, then the About tab and finally the Submissions tab. Afterwards, I must finish the game jam creation page and fix some minor issues, and Incubator will be ready for public testing. I estimate that all of this will be done by next week!

dynamicsofscratch wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

The next step is getting the Settings tab done, then the About tab and finally the Submissions tab. Afterwards, I must finish the game jam creation page and fix some minor issues, and Incubator will be ready for public testing. I estimate that all of this will be done by next week!

Looky's Mind: left with one brain cell

PizzaPizza72 wrote:

Game jam pages for me in the beta version of Incubator don't work!!!

Looky1173 wrote:

The posts I’m making here about thumbnail updates and the Hosts page are not live yet, meaning they are not publicly accessible at the moment. They will be soon, though!

Steve0Greatness wrote:

Looky1173 wrote:

The posts I’m making here about thumbnail updates and the Hosts page are not live yet, meaning they are not publicly accessible at the moment. They will be soon, though!

local tests?

Looky1173 wrote:

Incubator update:









Now all that is left to do is to implement submissions and create a page for making game jams, apart from minor improvements.

NFlex23 wrote:

(#416)
I've sent a message through Contact Us regarding user-moderated sites. Here's the message in full:

I wrote:

In light of the recent Scratch Auth fiasco and Itinerary link removal, I have a few questions about user-moderated sites. Ocular, a service that lets you react to forum posts and set your own string of text called a “status”, is not disallowed; in fact, it is incredibly popular within the foruming community for its ability to react to posts, and on the Scratch website for the ability to set your own status. Now within these “statuses” you could put whatever information you want, be it a notice telling others you're taking a break from Scratch temporarily or a link to a project you want to show off. This could be abused to share personal information such as email addresses, phone numbers, etc., though there are a group of Scratchers who regularly moderate these “statuses” to keep them as safe as possible. This leads me to my main question: are user-moderated sites like Ocular and Scratch Tutorials (https://scratchtutorials.vercel.app) allowed to be shared on the Scratch website even though they have a small potential to share personal information? Due to recent events (i.e., the Itinerary link removal), many users, including myself, are confused about what is allowed to be shared and what isn't. We would like to have a solid understanding of what the Scratch Team thinks is safe for the Scratch community.

Thank you for your time and patience,
NFlex23

A member of the ST wrote:

Thanks for reaching out. I understand this is frustrating with regard to external sites. We are working on investigating sites and updating/clarifying our policy around them. We do see the value in letting our community build its own tools, and we absolutely want to encourage creativity and collaboration. But we also have a duty to keep all our users safe, and that involves disallowing most external sites.

I don't have a definitive answer for you right now since we are still working on clarifying one. Since Scratch has grown exponentially over the last couple of years, we are revisiting policies around many aspects of the site, both in content and external links. Our community managers are involved, as is the entire moderation team.

When we decide on the updated policy, I am unsure what form that will take (perhaps a forum post, but perhaps not). For now, I can only promise I will reply to this message with an answer regarding the sites you've listed. Please reply to this yourself if you have further questions.

NFlex23 wrote:

NFlex23 wrote:

(#416)
I've sent a message through Contact Us regarding user-moderated sites. Here's the message in full:

I wrote:

In light of the recent Scratch Auth fiasco and Itinerary link removal, I have a few questions about user-moderated sites. Ocular, a service that lets you react to forum posts and set your own string of text called a “status”, is not disallowed; in fact, it is incredibly popular within the foruming community for its ability to react to posts, and on the Scratch website for the ability to set your own status. Now within these “statuses” you could put whatever information you want, be it a notice telling others you're taking a break from Scratch temporarily or a link to a project you want to show off. This could be abused to share personal information such as email addresses, phone numbers, etc., though there are a group of Scratchers who regularly moderate these “statuses” to keep them as safe as possible. This leads me to my main question: are user-moderated sites like Ocular and Scratch Tutorials (https://scratchtutorials.vercel.app) allowed to be shared on the Scratch website even though they have a small potential to share personal information? Due to recent events (i.e., the Itinerary link removal), many users, including myself, are confused about what is allowed to be shared and what isn't. We would like to have a solid understanding of what the Scratch Team thinks is safe for the Scratch community.

Thank you for your time and patience,
NFlex23

The ST has responded:

A member of the ST wrote:

Thanks for reaching out. I understand this is frustrating with regard to external sites. We are working on investigating sites and updating/clarifying our policy around them. We do see the value in letting our community build its own tools, and we absolutely want to encourage creativity and collaboration. But we also have a duty to keep all our users safe, and that involves disallowing most external sites.

I don't have a definitive answer for you right now since we are still working on clarifying one. Since Scratch has grown exponentially over the last couple of years, we are revisiting policies around many aspects of the site, both in content and external links. Our community managers are involved, as is the entire moderation team.

When we decide on the updated policy, I am unsure what form that will take (perhaps a forum post, but perhaps not). For now, I can only promise I will reply to this message with an answer regarding the sites you've listed. Please reply to this yourself if you have further questions.

I think what they're saying makes sense, though the fact that they're updating their privacy policy could potentially have consequences.

Looky1173 wrote:

-snip-
Hey,

I've been working on Itinerary for some time and it is finally ready to release! Itinerary allows Scratchers to create and participate in game jams using an intuitive interface. Scratchers can submit their projects to jams, upvote the ones they like; managers can select a winner and manage submissions; the time limits of game jams can be configured; and there's more! In short, it is supercharged studios for Scratch game jams.

-huge snip-