A private censor list.

BearSlothCoding

There are certain things that aren't inappropriate, but could be triggers for certain people. A lot of triggers for people are based on bad memories they have associated with that word/phrase. I've seen triggers be names of people who have hurt users, so this would be useful for them because totally normal names of people aren't going to be banned.

Scratchuser19278

Why not just make it that there is a list of words that are optional to censor, such as those mentioned in posts above? Then replace all the censored words with either a more polite/appropriate alternative, or something like CENSORED, maybe not with bold/caps lock, idk. That way, you prevent people censoring all the words, while still making it possible to censor those that commonly annoy some people, but not others.

Yellowsheep43

Scratchuser19278 wrote:
Why not just make it that there is a list of words that are optional to censor, such as those mentioned in posts above? Then replace all the censored words with either a more polite/appropriate alternative, or something like CENSORED, maybe not with bold/caps lock, idk. That way, you prevent people censoring all the words, while still making it possible to censor those that commonly annoy some people, but not others.

I dunno if limiting it to certain words would solve everybody's problems. There are bound to be words that bother some that are not on the list, and it might be a hassle just to add a new word.

Scratchfangs

Support, I would add the word “F4F” to the censor list.

Yellowsheep43

Scratchfangs wrote:
Support, I would add the word “F4F” to the censor list.

Please explain in more detail why you support

Scratchfangs

Yellowsheep43 wrote:
Please explain in more detail why you support

Nope, because I already said why.

Last edited by Scratchfangs (April 20, 2021 12:32:32)

Yellowsheep43

Scratchfangs wrote:
Yellowsheep43 wrote:
Please explain in more detail why you support
Nope, because I already said why.

No you did not, all you said was what you would do with the feature.

Foxy112345

dhfbei8987 wrote:
No support, still.

I mean, what if someone censored Scratch Team? That would become scratcher.

That only shows up to the person who censored it for themselves. Only they would see it. Also, they probably remember that they set it to do that so they would also probably not get confused.

I support 100%

All the cons people have mentioned are really silly.

Scratchfangs

Yellowsheep43 wrote:
No you did not, all you said was what you would do with the feature.

You see, this is why I hate these forums.

Yellowsheep43

bumping again

Yellowsheep43

how many times do I have to bump

Zoomer_X

I think instead of changing it to :) or something, the filterbot should say,

This message contains words that this user has censored on their profile.

Last edited by Zoomer_X (April 26, 2021 12:56:25)

lm1996

Zoomer_X wrote:
I think instead of changing it to :) or something, the filterbot should say,
Your message contains words that this user has censored on their profile.

No, this is for one person censoring words. With your logic, it should be:

This message contains words that you have censored in their profile.

I think it should not completely remove the comment's contents because it might be important, such as someone applying for an AT or MAP part.

Zoomer_X

lm1996 wrote:
Zoomer_X wrote:
I think instead of changing it to :) or something, the filterbot should say,
Your message contains words that this user has censored on their profile.
No, this is for one person censoring words. With your logic, it should be:
This message contains words that you have censored in their profile.
I think it should not completely remove the comment's contents because it might be important, such as someone applying for an AT or MAP part.

Thanks, I reworded it wrong.

Yellowsheep43

bump up

dertermenter

I am going to say this is rejected. It doesn’t solve the problem and instead covers it, and that is the reason blocking users was rejected. This will be confusing anyway and isn’t that helpful

Yellowsheep43

dertermenter wrote:
I am going to say this is rejected. It doesn’t solve the problem and instead covers it, and that is the reason blocking users was rejected. This will be confusing anyway and isn’t that helpful

This is NOT rejected. Read the entire OP, please.

I thought I added a part where you could still see what word is being censored.

-0Nebula0-

BearSlothCoding wrote:
There are certain things that aren't inappropriate, but could be triggers for certain people. A lot of triggers for people are based on bad memories they have associated with that word/phrase. I've seen triggers be names of people who have hurt users, so this would be useful for them because totally normal names of people aren't going to be banned.

Exactly, that's why I support

dertermenter

Yellowsheep43 wrote:
dertermenter wrote:
I am going to say this is rejected. It doesn’t solve the problem and instead covers it, and that is the reason blocking users was rejected. This will be confusing anyway and isn’t that helpful
This is NOT rejected. Read the entire OP, please.

I thought I added a part where you could still see what word is being censored.

*face palm*

I did read the OP, and this should be rejected for reasons above. And seeing the word defeats the point lol

dertermenter

A button to show the word defeats the purpose and this should be rejected. Reporting to be closed

Discuss Scratch