pavcato wrote:

Please don't write in blocks

KittyFireSt0rm wrote:

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

Unnecessary bumping isn't against the rules, so no support.

Actually, unnecessary bumping can be considered spam

Vibrato wrote:

pavcato wrote:

Please don't write in blocks

they wrote in blocks because they were using them to get a point through.

Nambaseking01 wrote:

You're saying that this system doesn't have to be perfect, and that you understand that millions of bump workarounds exist on Scratch. However, imperfection has a limit - a lot of people prefer to use bump workarounds (even I do, it's boring to just post plain bumps). Additionally, some things need to be done manually - if the Scratch Team makes everything that is not allowed on Scratch be removed by bots, it would be extremely unreliable and hard to work with. Of course, the Scratch Team uses bots for extremely bad purposes (like swearing or discussing inappropriate subjects), but things like taking down projects that haven't been mass-reported are done manually.

And additionally, the Scratch Team has confirmed that the 24 hours policy is just a little “protection” so that people don't spam bumps, but they said that people can bump every 12 hours, only it should be once a day (basically once everytime you're awake). So, unless this bot would have the power to track down people's sleep, or change the rule to something way less than 24 hours and make MBTI sensing characters very confused, I don't see how this feature could really help.

Krokophant wrote:

What on earth is a “bump”?

ittybitmap wrote:

I think it's a duplicate of this or I'm wrong

Vibrato wrote:

pavcato wrote:

Please don't write in blocks

they wrote in blocks because they were using them to get a point through.

d
ui7kj
6
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
snkjjghjghjgh
jghjgh
jhgjghjghj
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

lovecodeabc wrote:

How would they detect a sentence?
Someone could use
Bump. Bump.

[post] contains [bump]? ::operators boolean

Basic88 wrote:

lovecodeabc wrote:

How would they detect a sentence?
Someone could use
Bump. Bump.

The scripts work like

[post] contains [bump]? ::operators boolean

so even if someone puts “hriuehwuuewiijhfuBUMPheiuwoewiuioewio” the detector will still activate.

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Basic88 wrote:

lovecodeabc wrote:

How would they detect a sentence?
Someone could use
Bump. Bump.

The scripts work like

[post] contains [bump]? ::operators boolean

so even if someone puts “hriuehwuuewiijhfuBUMPheiuwoewiuioewio” the detector will still activate.

But what if someone asks what a bump is and someone answers using the word bump? Then the detector would activate and they wouldn't be able to post their response. I wouldn't be able to post this post if there was a detector that worked like that.

pavcato wrote:

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Basic88 wrote:

lovecodeabc wrote:

How would they detect a sentence?
Someone could use
Bump. Bump.

The scripts work like

[post] contains [bump]? ::operators boolean

so even if someone puts “hriuehwuuewiijhfuBUMPheiuwoewiuioewio” the detector will still activate.

But what if someone asks what a bump is and someone answers using the word bump? Then the detector would activate and they wouldn't be able to post their response. I wouldn't be able to post this post if there was a detector that worked like that.

It allows you to post if you press “Submit” again.

BearSlothCoding wrote:

ittybitmap wrote:

I think it's a duplicate of this or I'm wrong

You're wrong.
That suggestion is to change the bumping rules, this one is to give a warning when you break them.

Basic88 wrote:

There is a major flaw with this: “BUMP” is a common word. Like somebody could say “why are ppl saying bump” and a warning will appear when the persons intention was not to bump the topic.