Fupicat wrote:

Nambaseking01 wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

Section 7, in my case, just means that a person is not allowed at all to contact a specific person. Generally this comes your way if your behaviour is too poor for your child to be around.

Banana

Sorry for being so annoying, but I can only make out something weird out of that. So if I'm a dad, and I have a child, and my behaviour is poor then my child can't contact/be contacted by others?

I'm assuming by poor behavior Banana means abusive behavior.

Abusive, deplorable reliability, etc.

Banana

banana439monkey wrote:

Abusive, deplorable reliability, etc.

Banana

In that case, I think it would be unfair for a kid if they hate what their parents are doing and they just want to have a good time on Scratch.

Nambaseking01 wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

Abusive, deplorable reliability, etc.

Banana

In that case, I think it would be unfair for a kid if they hate what their parents are doing and they just want to have a good time on Scratch.

That's not what this suggestion is about. It's saying that if a user is having poor behavior towards a studio or another user, the ST can ban them from that specific studio or user account, if I understand correctly.

Fupicat wrote:

Nambaseking01 wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

Abusive, deplorable reliability, etc.

Banana

In that case, I think it would be unfair for a kid if they hate what their parents are doing and they just want to have a good time on Scratch.

That's not what this suggestion is about. It's saying that if a user is having poor behavior towards a studio or another user, the ST can ban them from that specific studio or user account, if I understand correctly.

Yep!

Banana

I do not support implementing this suggestion, as I believe that it isn't worth the effort it would take to implement it.

banana439monkey wrote:

IPV6 is static, fyi, but it's on a network-card-by-network-card basis.

I don't know what century you're living in but almost no one uses IPV6.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

I do not support implementing this suggestion, as I believe that it isn't worth the effort it would take to implement it.

It is in case of legal/restraining/harassment issues.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

IPV6 is static, fyi, but it's on a network-card-by-network-card basis.

I don't know what century you're living in but almost no one uses IPV6.

Dude, are you kidding me? A lot of the world are using IPv6. When I Google “what is my ip address”, I almost always see an IPv6 address.

Banana

Fupicat wrote:

That's not what this suggestion is about. It's saying that if a user is having poor behavior towards a studio or another user, the ST can ban them from that specific studio or user account, if I understand correctly.

What?! Sorry if this sounds offensive, but this is not going to help Scratch at all.

First of all, this probably has the same reason as to why blocking people is rejected. If a user is banned from a particular area, then there are millions more areas on which they can behave weirdly and break the Community Guidelines. I feel like the current reporting and banning/alerting system is way better than Section 7. As harassing and spamming is against the Community Guidelines, they'll have to be banned, not sectioned. I don't support this. I know I seem like a five-year-old screaming in your face but it's just true, you know.

banana439monkey wrote:

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

I do not support implementing this suggestion, as I believe that it isn't worth the effort it would take to implement it.

It is in case of legal/restraining/harassment issues.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

IPV6 is static, fyi, but it's on a network-card-by-network-card basis.

I don't know what century you're living in but almost no one uses IPV6.

Dude, are you kidding me? A lot of the world are using IPv6. When I Google “what is my ip address”, I almost always see an IPv6 address.

Banana

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption
I guess I was slightly off, but still only 30% of people use IPV6 by default–and I'm willing to bet over 99.9% of them have IPv4 as a fallback.
Either way it is a moot point as scratch doesn't support ipv6:
https://ipv6-test.com/validate.php
https://www.ipaddressguide.com/ipv6-check

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

I do not support implementing this suggestion, as I believe that it isn't worth the effort it would take to implement it.

It is in case of legal/restraining/harassment issues.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

IPV6 is static, fyi, but it's on a network-card-by-network-card basis.

I don't know what century you're living in but almost no one uses IPV6.

Dude, are you kidding me? A lot of the world are using IPv6. When I Google “what is my ip address”, I almost always see an IPv6 address.

Banana

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption
I guess I was slightly off, but still only 30% of people use IPV6 by default–and I'm willing to bet over 99.9% of them have IPv4 as a fallback.
Either way it is a moot point as scratch doesn't support ipv6:
https://ipv6-test.com/validate.php
https://www.ipaddressguide.com/ipv6-check

Any reference for only supporting IPv4?

Nambaseking01 wrote:

Fupicat wrote:

That's not what this suggestion is about. It's saying that if a user is having poor behavior towards a studio or another user, the ST can ban them from that specific studio or user account, if I understand correctly.

What?! Sorry if this sounds offensive, but this is not going to help Scratch at all.

First of all, this probably has the same reason as to why blocking people is rejected. If a user is banned from a particular area, then there are millions more areas on which they can behave weirdly and break the Community Guidelines (yes, but harassment is a person-by-person not a site-by-site basis). I feel like the current reporting and banning/alerting system is way better than Section 7. As harassing and spamming is against the Community (how? being blocked can easily be appealed, therefore more of a chance to repeat actions) Guidelines, they'll have to be banned, not sectioned. I don't support this. I know I seem like a five-year-old screaming in your face but it's just true, you know.

sorry for misquotes but yeee

Banana

banana439monkey wrote:

Any reference for only supporting IPv4?

The links I posted show that scratch.mit.edu is incompatible with IPv6.

banana439monkey wrote:

sorry for misquotes but yeee

Banana

Um, that doesn't clarify a lot. Don't you also think Section 7 rather buries the problem than solve it?

Nambaseking01 wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

sorry for misquotes but yeee

Banana

Um, that doesn't clarify a lot. Don't you also think Section 7 rather buries the problem than solve it?

It solves it by preventing the harassme

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

Any reference for only supporting IPv4?

The links I posted show that scratch.mit.edu is incompatible with IPv6.

Oops. Anyway, I'm guessing AWS will eventually support it, and Scratch will point to IPv6?

Banana

banana439monkey wrote:

It solves it by preventing the harassme

Yeah, but that harasser could just as well go to more people and start abusing them… It really does just bury the issue…

Nambaseking01 wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

It solves it by preventing the harassme

Yeah, but that harasser could just as well go to more people and start abusing them… It really does just bury the issue…

It's not that it buries the issue, it just doesn't solve them any more than a ban does. Harrasing user creates new account, changes IP, job done. The same thing that they would do if they were banned.

Fupicat wrote:

Nambaseking01 wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

It solves it by preventing the harassme

Yeah, but that harasser could just as well go to more people and start abusing them… It really does just bury the issue…

It's not that it buries the issue, it just doesn't solve them any more than a ban does. Harrasing user creates new account, changes IP, job done. The same thing that they would do if they were banned.

Does anyone wanna help me build IPv7?

Banana

banana439monkey wrote:

Does anyone wanna help me build IPv7?

Banana

If we wanna make it more secure we must skip straight to IPv20

Fupicat wrote:

banana439monkey wrote:

Does anyone wanna help me build IPv7?

Banana

If we wanna make it more secure we must skip straight to IPv20

No. Let's use IPv∞, and assume that there is nothing larger than ∞.

You mean something like restraining orders?

No support, the current reporting and alert system is effective as it is. Banning a user from commenting on a specific user/studio would just enable them to continue their behavior.

PrincessPandaLover wrote:

You mean something like restraining orders?

No support, the current reporting and alert system is effective as it is. Banning a user from commenting on a specific user/studio would just enable them to continue their behavior.

Are you really going to ban someone for having a restraining order? Are you really going to sanction them to which they'd ignore everything?

Banana