I don't think impersonators should be banned without a warning, even if they are, the bans should be appealable

Some people say they shouldn't be given a second chance because their usernames are “impersonating usernames”, but I think it happens all the time, like if someone used the username @-sharkode-, does it mean they should be banned? I don't think so

Well, if the appeal goes through and they get their account back, now we've got two people that are sharkode. They can't change their names, so the bans should only be removed so when they make a new account they aren't ban evading.

rayli1123 wrote:

so the bans should only be removed so when they make a new account they aren't ban evading.

But they should keep the impersonation account banned and let the person use the other account.

If an account it obviously intended to imitate another member of the Scratch community, that is most likely the sole purpouse. Such accounts should be dealt with immediatly.

Aren't impersonating accounts deleted? I had a problem where an impersonator kept on trying to interact with me and I used contact us and the account was deleted.

Here's the thing. Anyone who is blatantly impersonating another Scratcher knows what they are doing: impersonating. They are likely aware that impersonating someone is not good, at the very least disrespectful. If someone knows that what they are doing is bad and choose to do it anyway, the Scratch Team reasonably gives them a harsher punishment.

I don't remember if the Scratch Team allows impersonators to come back onto the website provided that they don't impersonate another Scratcher. If they do, then there's no harm in banning an account that is likely to cause confusion — someone could just make a new account in that case.

Not all accounts with similar names are automatically impersonating. If someone makes an account called @Zach-ary and is nowhere close to impersonating me (e.g. original projects, completely different profile picture), then they would not get banned, as it is not impersonation. Having a similar username does not automatically mean they are impersonating me. Just because I exist, that does not mean I have some sort of “trademark” on usernames that are similar to “Zachary.”

So, if your suggestion is “stop banning Scratchers who are truly impersonating other Scratchers,” then I think that is unlikely to be implemented, and I would agree that the Scratch Team should continue to ban those who are intentionally misleading others. If your suggestion is instead “stop banning Scratchers who have usernames which are similar to another Scratcher,” then I suspect that is already implemented, because having a similar username is not “impersonation” — the user actually needs to be acting like another user or otherwise get involved in some sort of trickery in order for it to be considered “impersonation.”

Za-Chary wrote:

Not all accounts with similar names are automatically impersonating. If someone makes an account called @Zach-ary and is nowhere close to impersonating me (e.g. original projects, completely different profile picture), then they would not get banned, as it is not impersonation. Having a similar username does not automatically mean they are impersonating me. Just because I exist, that does not mean I have some sort of “trademark” on usernames that are similar to “Zachary.”

Yes, and this is what I meant, they can and should be let back as long as they stop impersonating and be the “@Zach-ary” type of users that you're mentioning

The ban should be appealable, but I also think that banning the account is the safer option, since if the account appears to be blatantly impersonating another account, then it likely is.

sharkode wrote:

Yes, and this is what I meant, they can and should be let back as long as they stop impersonating and be the “@Zach-ary” type of users that you're mentioning

I think in some cases it's still justifiable. I'd be uncomfortable with someone having an account called @The_Real_Za-Chary, especially if they were previously busted for impersonating me.

I don't support this.
Imagine that a user impersonating you is doing things that are harming your reputation. I don't think a warning would suffice in that instance.

I looked it up and this is what it said : The law made it a crime to steal someone's name, voice, photo or other information to create a false identity on social media. so…. No support

Edit: i know scratch is not socail media but close enough

I believe this suggestion should not be implemented. If someone is impersonating, there isn't really a way to make them stop, they can't change their username, and the Scratch Team probably wouldn't change it for them as the impersonator would know what they're doing as it's a very deliberate and planned attack. Even if their username is unrelated to the original user, “striking” them may still not prevent them from impersonating. Anyone can use people's content on Scratch but it shouldn't be used against the user or to pretend to be the user. Impersonators blatantly and purposefully break the guidelines and shouldn't be given a second chance.

Jbear_ wrote:

I looked it up and this is what it said : The law made it a crime to steal someone's name, voice, photo or other information to create a false identity on social media. so…. No support

Edit: i know scratch is not socail media but close enough

Problems with your post:

1. Please spell properly
   
2. Scratch is a social media
   
3. They aren't stealing any name, voice, photo or other stuffs like that
   
4. Even if it is illegal it still doesn't mean they should be permanently banned
   

Za-Chary wrote:

Here's the thing. Anyone who is blatantly impersonating another Scratcher knows what they are doing: impersonating. They are likely aware that impersonating someone is not good, at the very least disrespectful. If someone knows that what they are doing is bad and choose to do it anyway, the Scratch Team reasonably gives them a harsher punishment.

I don't remember if the Scratch Team allows impersonators to come back onto the website provided that they don't impersonate another Scratcher. If they do, then there's no harm in banning an account that is likely to cause confusion — someone could just make a new account in that case.

Not all accounts with similar names are automatically impersonating. If someone makes an account called @Zach-ary and is nowhere close to impersonating me (e.g. original projects, completely different profile picture), then they would not get banned, as it is not impersonation. Having a similar username does not automatically mean they are impersonating me. Just because I exist, that does not mean I have some sort of “trademark” on usernames that are similar to “Zachary.”

So, if your suggestion is “stop banning Scratchers who are truly impersonating other Scratchers,” then I think that is unlikely to be implemented, and I would agree that the Scratch Team should continue to ban those who are intentionally misleading others. If your suggestion is instead “stop banning Scratchers who have usernames which are similar to another Scratcher,” then I suspect that is already implemented, because having a similar username is not “impersonation” — the user actually needs to be acting like another user or otherwise get involved in some sort of trickery in order for it to be considered “impersonation.”

“They are likely aware that impersonating someone is not good, at the very least disrespectful.”

Keep in mind that scratch is used by children of all ages, including those whose age is written only with a single digit. It isn't unreasonable to think that a 7-9 year old scratcher might “impersonate” their favourite scratcher for fun, not knowing that what they did was wrong. Is it really right to ban them from scratch without a warning?

Except for very serious infringements, nothing should result in a ban without warning.
For that reason I give my support to this suggestion.

I don't really like this idea, as impersonation has no positive effects on the one being impersonated. Maybe owners of accounts could be allowed to make a new account and continue using old accounts if they stop impersonating a user and aren't disrespectful to that user, but other than that I really don't support this.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

“They are likely aware that impersonating someone is not good, at the very least disrespectful.”

Keep in mind that scratch is used by children of all ages, including those whose age is written only with a single digit. It isn't unreasonable to think that a 7-9 year old scratcher might “impersonate” their favourite scratcher for fun, not knowing that what they did was wrong. Is it really right to ban them from scratch without a warning?

Except for very serious infringements, nothing should result in a ban without warning.

Very fair point. There are some cases where an account is banned but the user is still allowed to make a new account. The question, then, is whether or not first-time impersonators are currently allowed to make a new account as long as it follows the Community Guidelines.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

“They are likely aware that impersonating someone is not good, at the very least disrespectful.”

Keep in mind that scratch is used by children of all ages, including those whose age is written only with a single digit. It isn't unreasonable to think that a 7-9 year old scratcher might “impersonate” their favourite scratcher for fun, not knowing that what they did was wrong. Is it really right to ban them from scratch without a warning?

Except for very serious infringements, nothing should result in a ban without warning.
For that reason I give my support to this suggestion.

i agree, children shouldn't be perm. banned just because they ‘'impersonated’' someone with no bad intentions, only doing it because they're their favourite scratcher,,

and other than that, you have to consider the fact that a lot of people have unoriginal usernames (i mean nothing bad with this btw haha) that a lot of other people will think of. is it fair to ban someone just because they have a similar username to someone else?

Jbear_ wrote:

scratch is not social media

It is.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:

social media- websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

By that definition, Scratch is social media.

SomeoneOnThelnternet wrote:

Jbear_ wrote:

scratch is not social media

It is.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:

social media- websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

By that definition, Scratch is social media.

whoops

Za-Chary wrote:

I think in some cases it's still justifiable. I'd be uncomfortable with someone having an account called @The_Real_Za-Chary, especially if they were previously busted for impersonating me.

True, but I don't think it's really fair that we ban them from ever coming back because of one single offence and delete all of their games and stuff that they put time and efforts in to create