The scratch membership has rolled out, and stuff like cat frames and cat blocks are here for members only. BUT, on the members page, it calls the cat blocks “themes”, this implies there will be more, and a theme could mean changing the color of the editor, dark mode, etc., Which are all useful for different users, but making it member-only will require many users to get the membership.

Dark mode????????????????????????????????????????????????/ O my godd. Before I totally freak abt this tho, can I have a source? Maybe a pull request?

Wait, whys are there so many ‘'Do NOT’' suggestions?

thedolphin_ wrote:

Dark mode????????????????????????????????????????????????/ O my godd. Before I totally freak abt this tho, can I have a source? Maybe a pull request?

That was given as an example of what a theme might be. It was not intended to be taken as a fact.

kip21s wrote:

Wait, whys are there so many ‘'Do NOT’' suggestions?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and many people are scared of what the membership might become.

To the OP: I am pretty sure this is already the intent.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

To the OP: I am pretty sure this is already the intent.

Well, the main problem is that, the cat blocks were added (a feature the community has wanted for ages), and they're adding membership badges, which were rejected-adjacent, and new early access sprites, which are sort-of useful, so, they could add dark mode for members only, among other things, especially with their description of “themes”

I don't care if they charge for themes except for the dark mode. Nothing matters except the dark mode. The site needed a dark mode 10 years ago. If they paywall it I'll delete my account.

I heavily doubt they would do anything to that extent. Dark-mode being paywalled is very unlikely as I'm sure ST is well aware how much it would dissappoint the users.

starlightsparker wrote:

I heavily doubt they would do anything to that extent. Dark-mode being paywalled is very unlikely as I'm sure ST is well aware how much it would dissappoint the users.

cat blocks

NanoRook wrote:

I don't care if they charge for themes except for the dark mode. Nothing matters except the dark mode. The site needed a dark mode 10 years ago. If they paywall it I'll delete my account.

I'm going to remind myself of this post.

As for the suggestion: i'm more mixed on the Membership I'm actually going crazy because of this and i'm worried that they will add useful features.

Adding and paywalling useful membership features would only cause anger and division; I'm sure they wouldn't.

also… I had no idea that users with memberships would have a badge and now I feel like I'm needlessly flexing. Whoops.

Yeah I honestly would be mad if that's what they mean by “themes.” Those should be available to everyone, as it would help with accessibility. However, ever since the purple update (the one that also included high contrast blocks), I've felt like the Scratch Team hasn't really listened to feedback on it.

Epicness123 wrote:

Adding and paywalling useful membership features would only cause anger and division; I'm sure they wouldn't.

also… I had no idea that users with memberships would have a badge and now I feel like I'm needlessly flexing. Whoops.

There's a way to disable it from Account Settings from what I've heard but it doesn't disable the label next to username as far as I know unfortunately

medians wrote:

Yeah I honestly would be mad if that's what they mean by “themes.” Those should be available to everyone, as it would help with accessibility. However, ever since the purple update (the one that also included high contrast blocks), I've felt like the Scratch Team hasn't really listened to feedback on it.

Scratch 3.0 criticism?

starlightsparker wrote:

I heavily doubt they would do anything to that extent. Dark-mode being paywalled is very unlikely as I'm sure ST is well aware how much it would dissappoint the users.

They paywalled Cat blocks they will 100% paywall dark mode while also banning people who tell people how to get it for free with an extension

kip21s wrote:

medians wrote:

Yeah I honestly would be mad if that's what they mean by “themes.” Those should be available to everyone, as it would help with accessibility. However, ever since the purple update (the one that also included high contrast blocks), I've felt like the Scratch Team hasn't really listened to feedback on it.

Scratch 3.0 criticism?

Yeah, though the purple and high contrast blocks specifically were intended for accessibility and to improve the experience for people who have conditions like CVD (color vision deficiency) and other vision conditions. However, this wasn't the case for me (with photophobia) and colorblind people. Look at the purple links compared to the grey text with achromatopsia and tritanopia compared with the blues and look at the high contrast blocks with different types of colorblindness
https://daltonlens.org/colorblindness-simulator
https://pilestone.com/pages/color-blindness-simulator (only use this one for the achromatopsia one)
Dark mode is also supposed to be an accessibility thing and not something that should be locked behind membership, so if the themes include dark mode, I hope it's not added.

meh as long as its not new blocks I'm fine with it

Comix_2 wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

I heavily doubt they would do anything to that extent. Dark-mode being paywalled is very unlikely as I'm sure ST is well aware how much it would dissappoint the users.

They paywalled Cat blocks they will 100% paywall dark mode while also banning people who tell people how to get it for free with an extension

No, just because one thing was paywalled does not allow us to conclude that any other thing would be paywalled.

The extension policy exists for safety purposes (it is easy to hide malicious code in browser extensions). It does not exist as an excuse to ban users over accessing features in manners outside of the intent, nor is it enforced on the Draconian basis that you claim it is. Bans over the extension policy would only occur if someone refuses to stop after warnings.

I agree with this.

With the whole putting in rejected suggestions behind a paywall especially when they were begged for by almost everybody (cough cough cat blocks cough cough), I fear they might be on the road for adding more features behind the membership that might benefit everybody if it wasn't behind a paywall. If anything, I can almost see this happening to try to pressure people into buying their membership. I just hope that something like dark mode isn't behind a paywall. I'm afraid of all good suggestions getting locked behind a paywall. I'd even worry about existing features as well, as they could pull a Capcut and start paywalling existing features like extensions. I'd list more things they could do but I don't want to start giving them ideas…

It really feels like there's a chance to kind of “pressure” people into buying it by adding all sorts of helpful features behind the membership, and I can only hope that it's not going to be the route they'll take.

Comix_2 wrote:

They paywalled Cat blocks they will 100% paywall dark mode

Cat blocks and dark mode are two very, very different things.
Cat blocks just for fun and don't really change much expirence-wise, plus it was a rejected suggestion and everyone came to terms with that.
Dark mode is a feature avaliable on almost every site, that makes it easier to use the site in certain environments, sometimes helps users with vision problems such as myself to read better, has been an ongoing suggestions for over a decade (IIRC), almost unanimously agreed by the entire userbase that it should be added, etc…

Comix_2 wrote:

while also banning people who tell people how to get it for free with an extension

Naming extensions has been banned since the dawn of time. This is not related to the membership.

starlightsparker wrote:

Comix_2 wrote:

while also banning people who tell people how to get it for free with an extension

Naming extensions has been banned since the dawn of time. This is not related to the membership.

2017 Is not the dawn of time. It's only been 8 years.

kip21s wrote:

2017 Is not the dawn of time. It's only been 8 years.

Doesn't matter, Either way that rule exists for 8 years