Discuss Scratch
![[RSS Feed]](http://cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__9c6d3f90ec5f8ace6d3e8ea1e684b778__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]"){kind=icon}
- Irish-Tea
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
NO.
Do you have any examples of “updates” the blocks received?wiki article: scratch 3.0
I think you misread my post. My point wasn't that the followers could see it, it's that if you share a project all your followers are alerted about it. See my Griffpatch example. If he shared an unshared project with someone in a comment, maybe a handful of people who read the comment will see the project. On the other hand, if he shared the project onto the website, 200,000 people would be alerted about it, drawing unnecessary attention.He can share it on an alternate account and pretty much do the exact same thing, just without turbowarp.
You can't blacklist every single website with user-generated content, it's just not possible. Blacklisting sites in mass is regardless a draconian solution that would hinder legitimate use.You can blacklist them as people start using them to abuse them.
What do you mean by “default setting”? Yes, the projects stay uploaded on the site, but they won't be linked to the user's profile.When you delete your account the keep projects option would be selected by default. True, but you can find them by searching.
Even if the owner wanted to leave Scratch, by uploading their projects onto the site they put it under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license, meaning there is no reason why they shouldn't be available to others regardless of the account owner's wishes.I'm not talking about that. Most of the time you wouldn't know if they deleted them intentionally or not once the account is deleted.
annoying imageThat's just from what I've seen.
Also, long links are not the only problem. Links with many numbers would be censored by the phone number detector.Fair, but viewing unshared project's cons outweigh the pros.
Which one? Please don't assume that people have read the entirety of TOLORS.4.1 but you probably should.
It's the same thing with sharing links to other sites, except on other sites you could actively make it harder to find the content. In fact, if you want, you can give a link to a shared project containing well-hidden personal information, with the same underlying problems.Except after either the scratch team finds the content or you explain in contact us the site will be blacklisted. It is be much more time consuming for the scratch team to review every project after seeing a contact us message. You forgot that you have a text field when reporting projects.
Last edited by Irish-Tea (May 9, 2022 00:46:37)
hi this is my signature
i have no idea what to put here
h
drGUIpA*#YHTubn)(fnW&*O#Rg4et&*@#7ry#&*0#rth)Whwe48)*(#)Y%#H#7)#@HR3#*&H#*RH#QW*(RH#*(Y#*hEHNUSDFNWE*()#!()Q
- completeness
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
NO.
I asked for examples, you led me to a Wiki article that doesn't describe any updates that have happened since the release of 3.0.Do you have any examples of “updates” the blocks received?wiki article: scratch 3.0
I've already explained why that's not a good solution.I think you misread my post. My point wasn't that the followers could see it, it's that if you share a project all your followers are alerted about it. See my Griffpatch example. If he shared an unshared project with someone in a comment, maybe a handful of people who read the comment will see the project. On the other hand, if he shared the project onto the website, 200,000 people would be alerted about it, drawing unnecessary attention.He can share it on an alternate account and pretty much do the exact same thing, just without turbowarp.
My post explains why that's not a good idea. I'm not sure if you read my post or if you just skimmed through it.You can't blacklist every single website with user-generated content, it's just not possible. Blacklisting sites in mass is regardless a draconian solution that would hinder legitimate use.You can blacklist them as people start using them to abuse them.
I'm not sure what you mean with your first statement.What do you mean by “default setting”? Yes, the projects stay uploaded on the site, but they won't be linked to the user's profile.When you delete your account the keep projects option would be selected by default. True, but you can find them by searching.
You can't find unshared projects by searching. If you meant the ST could search for the projects, you're assuming the Scratch Team cares enough to actually do that (I wouldn't be surprised if there are no tools for the admins to do this, and I doubt they'd fiddle around with a production database), which they don't.
It doesn't matter. By sharing it on the site, they've given other people the permission to view it as they please, regardless of their wishes.Even if the owner wanted to leave Scratch, by uploading their projects onto the site they put it under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license, meaning there is no reason why they shouldn't be available to others regardless of the account owner's wishes.I'm not talking about that. Most of the time you wouldn't know if they deleted them intentionally or not once the account is deleted.
You must be in a bubble, then, because I've never seen Turbowarp et al. used to break the guidelines.annoying imageThat's just from what I've seen.
That's fair, but circumstances change. I don't think the reasoning behind the initial rejection was sound anyway considering how easy it is to circumvent the lack of ability to “unlist” projects even without Turbowarp, with the same issues behind it. It's like banning all links outside of Scratch because the moderators don't have the resources to look through every link.Which one? Please don't assume that people have read the entirety of TOLORS.4.1 but you probably should.
Again, I explained why blacklisting sites for this reason is not a good idea. By banning a site because some people used it wrongly, it means that legitimate use won't be possible. Take GitHub, for example; many Scratch users use it legitimately, but if I wish, I can upload a project with numerous curse words onto GitHub and share a link to it on Scratch, without breaking GitHub's guidelines. This has the same pitfall mentioned with sharing links to unshared projects, and the solution is… what exactly? Ban GitHub links?It's the same thing with sharing links to other sites, except on other sites you could actively make it harder to find the content. In fact, if you want, you can give a link to a shared project containing well-hidden personal information, with the same underlying problems.Except after either the scratch team finds the content or you explain in contact us the site will be blacklisted. It is be much more time consuming for the scratch team to review every project after seeing a contact us message. You forgot that you have a text field when reporting projects.
Furthermore, your argument about text fields on the project report dialog isn't really true. The Scratch Team suggests that when you want to describe why a comment broke the guidelines, you use Contact Us.
- dhuls
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
NO.
https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Scratch_Update_HistoryI asked for examples, you led me to a Wiki article that doesn't describe any updates that have happened since the release of 3.0.Do you have any examples of “updates” the blocks received?wiki article: scratch 3.0
- completeness
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
NO.
The last change to the programming language was on the release of Scratch 3.0. Also, this list only confirms my claims of the ST's inactivity - since the release of Scratch 3.0, the website itself has only been updated nine times (less than 5 times per year), even including minor changes.https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Scratch_Update_HistoryI asked for examples, you led me to a Wiki article that doesn't describe any updates that have happened since the release of 3.0.Do you have any examples of “updates” the blocks received?wiki article: scratch 3.0