Suggestion: (please read the whole post before answering)

Change the ammount of reports needed to take down a project by the followers you have. This is just for not Scratch Team checked projects when it gets automatically taken down.

Why like that?
This makes sense as for example a scratcher with 0-20 followers should get it removed after 3 or 4 Reports while a Scratcher with 1000 followers would then easily get mass-reported and taken down. Now, you COULD say you should base it on views, but those are way easier to manipulate than follows.

Would 0 followers autotakedown projects?
No, as there is a standard number of 3 or 4 reports which is then increased by achieving more followers.

And… Equality?
Even though I don't think that the same ammout of reports to takedown a project for everyone is the best idea, because famous scratchers suffer from mass reporting and taking down a project goes with “just a few reports” goes too fast if you get so many views, an increased number of reports for everyone would make it harder to takedown inappropiate projects of unpopular scratchers which are not seen often. This suggestion would remove that everyone is treated equal in that case but in my opinion (and that's just a opinion) it's right.

Massreporting new Scratchers?
As that wasd mentioned, I can just say I am not sure. On the one hand, for what could a massreporter be envious or angry onto a new or unpopular Scratcher but on the other hand, this system might allow that to happen. Still, this should be also possible in the current system, even tho I have never heard of it happening (which was possibly also was caused by the cases where it happened not reaching much attention since the people that were hit were unpopular and just almost nobody saw it).

Cons:
-If an F4Fer that has a lot of followers makes a project that's inappropiate, it may not be taken down because *some* F4Fers don't get many views and then the project may cause a lot more trouble than needed

Still remember we are talking about autotakedown and reproted projects will be still checked by the Scratch Team members.

Now, what do you think?

so if i have 0 it will auto take it down?
No support

What about a person with 0 followers?

How will they be able to share projects

I can imagine some trolls mass reporting newbies

Crow_Boy08 wrote:

so if i have 0 it will auto take it down?
No support

TheClaw7654 wrote:

What about a person with 0 followers?

How will they be able to share projects

No, we did not talk about 0 but I think 2 or 3 reports are enough for persons under 20 followers.
Its a group system:

Group 1 (0-20 followers): like 3 reports
Group 2 (21-80 followers): like 4 reports
Group 3 (80-120 followers): like 6 reports

and then 1 more report per 30 followers.

YtArie5 wrote:

I can imagine some trolls mass reporting newbies

Well, I never heard of that but it is possible.

YtArie5 wrote:

I can imagine some trolls mass reporting newbies

Exactly. Although, with enough kindness, you can get more than 40 followers (like me) and workaround these limitations.

YtArie5 wrote:

I can imagine some trolls mass reporting newbies

Also with just 3 reports req rn it can already happen rn if thats true

Crow_Boy08 wrote:

so if i have 0 it will auto take it down?
No support

TheClaw7654 wrote:

What about a person with 0 followers?

How will they be able to share projects

Its like I said spli t into classes for example 0-20 followers need like 3 reports and then going on but not like 0 followers autotakedown…

YtArie5 wrote:

I can imagine some trolls mass reporting newbies

The root cause of mass reporting is jealousy, I don't understand how can a troll get jealous of a newbie with 0-20 followers.

Scratch_NT wrote:

No, we did not talk about 0 but I think 2 or 3 reports are enough for persons under 20 followers.
Its a group system:

Group 1 (0-20 followers): like 3 reports
Group 2 (21-80 followers): like 4 reports
Group 3 (80-120 followers): like 6 reports

and then 1 more report per 30 followers.

There is a problem with the system you described….

Someone with 1000 followers might share the link to a social media site (which not many know is against the community guidelines) would take 35 reports to take it down, it isn't very practical to get 35 of your followers to report a project, nor is 1 or 2 reports at different times going to be enough to catch the ST's attention…

So on that note, the limits need to be a bit overstretched,
Maybe the limit should be +1 report to take down a project every 200 followers, to keep it fair.

Other than that, I see no problem in the suggestion, it could help get mass reported projects just above the auto-takedown line, provided that a well-thought off limit is agreed upon.

No support because this would be unfair for new people getting started with scratch and things it should do and not do. Plus the amount of fame could mean that they could act nice in the first time but then they would act mean and then people would have no choice but to mass report them which is not allowed. Also some random troll could report them (said here)
The only benifet I see here is reporting new inappropriate trolls which I don't see often.

There could be a chance I would misunderstood the post so if I did please remind me.

Bump…

Great idea! Let’s also limit users with under ten followers to have to accept every FOR request, so they know their place! Not like thats unfair to them.
Besides, what if someone gets a lot of followers, but never from projects, then they start trolling? Here, i asked Text Complete on OpenAI to help with the idea:

Changing the amount of reports needed to take down a project on Scratch is a bad idea for several reasons. First, it sets a dangerous precedent. Scratch is a platform that encourages a creative and collaborative spirit, and allowing users to take down projects with fewer reports sends the message that such a spirit is not valued or respected. This sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to a decrease in project creation and collaboration.

Second, it undermines the integrity of the Scratch community. Scratch is a platform that values user feedback and collaboration, and by allowing projects to be taken down with fewer reports, users are deprived from their right to provide meaningful feedback and discussion. This can lead to a decrease in the quality of projects, as well as an overall decrease in user engagement.

Finally, it undermines the purpose of the Scratch platform. Scratch was created as a platform for users to create and share their projects, and allowing users to take down projects with fewer reports sends a message that the platform is more focused on censorship and control than creativity and collaboration. This undermines the entire purpose of the platform, and could ultimately lead to a decrease in user engagement and project creation.

Overall, changing the amount of reports needed to take down a project on Scratch is a bad idea. It sets a dangerous precedent, undermines the integrity of the Scratch community, and undermines the purpose of the platform. For these reasons, it is important that Scratch maintains its current policy of requiring multiple reports before a project can be taken down.

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Great idea! Let’s also limit users with under ten followers to have to accept every FOR request, so they know their place! Not like thats unfair to them.
Besides, what if someone gets a lot of followers, but never from projects, then they start trolling? Here, i asked Text Complete on OpenAI to help with the idea:

AHHH, ROBOTS ARE TAKING OVER EVEN THINKING

Exactly! In agree completly.

sheesh, ChatGPT is advanced

No support, what if someone with 1000+ followers got hacked?
It would be hard to take down the bad projects because of the high follow count.

So basically you want it to be easier for trolls to target new scratchers?

How about instead of follows, we base it on views?
Because I have over 600 followers, with at least 75% of those either inactive or following too many other people to notice.
So if I were to post something inappropriate, I would have an advantage since it would take a lot more reports to auto-block lil' ol' irrelevant me.
And conversely, someone with like 2 followers who suddenly gets featured or curated would take a lot less reports.

Or maybe have a hybrid of both? Maybe take into consideration both the amount of views AND the follower count of the person?
Because basing it just off of followers would make an uneven playing field.

Yellowsheep43 wrote:

How about instead of follows, we base it on views?
Because I have over 600 followers, with at least 75% of those either inactive or following too many other people to notice.
So if I were to post something inappropriate, I would have an advantage since it would take a lot more reports to auto-block lil' ol' irrelevant me.
And conversely, someone with like 2 followers who suddenly gets featured or curated would take a lot less reports.

Or maybe have a hybrid of both? Maybe take into consideration both the amount of views AND the follower count of the person?
Because basing it just off of followers would make an uneven playing field.

I think that's better….

The_Blue_J wrote:

Yellowsheep43 wrote:

How about instead of follows, we base it on views?
Because I have over 600 followers, with at least 75% of those either inactive or following too many other people to notice.
So if I were to post something inappropriate, I would have an advantage since it would take a lot more reports to auto-block lil' ol' irrelevant me.
And conversely, someone with like 2 followers who suddenly gets featured or curated would take a lot less reports.

Or maybe have a hybrid of both? Maybe take into consideration both the amount of views AND the follower count of the person?
Because basing it just off of followers would make an uneven playing field.

I think that's better….

Better, but still silly, this is completly unneccesary sugesstion.

insert op here

What if Griffpatch posted a project that breaks the community guidelines? How many reports would that have to be? (Keep in mind he has over 400k followers!)