This wouldn't be a problem if the team just added what we wanted instead of waiting years. I understand it's not easy but many extensions do things the Scratch team never have or will.

IndexErrorException wrote:

(#61)
This wouldn't be a problem if the team just added what we wanted instead of waiting years. I understand it's not easy but many extensions do things the Scratch team never have or will.

…for, most of the time, good reasons, and one of them is lack of resources.
scratch is donation-fueled. scratch team is an NPO, and so it isn't geared toward making profit.
therefore it does not have infinite resources.
adding features also takes time. you can't go out on a whim, create a browser ext and call it a day, you have to test it rigurously on lots of platforms, tweak the execution for accessibility and hope for the best.

I feel like that most of these rants about forbidden word are unnecessary. While the references are a sign of encouraging dangerous software, there is a much more better solution to the issue than saying it’s bad.

But overall, all this information isn’t clear to me. No support.

IndexErrorException wrote:

(#61)
This wouldn't be a problem if the team just added what we wanted instead of waiting years. I understand it's not easy but many extensions do things the Scratch team never have or will.

I quote Jeffalo:

Jeffalo wrote:

implementing quick hack features into a browser extension is very different from implementing reliable and tested features nicely into a website.

IndexErrorException wrote:

This wouldn't be a problem if the team just added what we wanted instead of waiting years. I understand it's not easy but many extensions do things the Scratch team never have or will.

Or, the alternative solution is… learn to work with what you have.

Bump

No support. In the ATs, no-no word means “browser extension”. I dont understand how a move verbose way of saying that is a good idea.

ideapad-320 wrote:

No support. In the ATs, no-no word means “browser extension”. I dont understand how a move verbose way of saying that is a good idea.

Do you understand what I am suggesting?

i_eat_coffee wrote:

ideapad-320 wrote:

No support. In the ATs, no-no word means “browser extension”. I dont understand how a move verbose way of saying that is a good idea.

Do you understand what I am suggesting?

oops. I misread somthing.
It is still a bad idea though.

no support since this is pretty much a suggestion i was gonna make on april fools day

When you think of it, this would be very hard to do. While people may stop using the term “no-no word”, there will always be screenshots of Scratch with extensions turned on, and there will be people who will ask “How did you get dark mode and the blue back?”. There will always be people who report a bug that is because of the extension, and there will be people who think that the “leave studio” button is an official feature because they use extensions, and other people will have to tell them that it's because of the extension. I can understand banning the practice of encouraging people to use “no-no word”, but that's about it.

No support. You have say browser extension which nono-word is the same thing.

NotK3ndricAlt wrote:

Mockup:
Download (removed by moderator - please don't say the nono word) to get dark mode!

If your not joking then that's concerning…

k7e wrote:

When you think of it, this would be very hard to do. While people may stop using the term “no-no word”, there will always be screenshots of Scratch with extensions turned on, and there will be people who will ask “How did you get dark mode and the blue back?”.

People will also just refer to a different term, like the extension or forbidden word, or invent a new one, which is practically impossible to ban

ajskateboarder wrote:

k7e wrote:

When you think of it, this would be very hard to do. While people may stop using the term “no-no word”, there will always be screenshots of Scratch with extensions turned on, and there will be people who will ask “How did you get dark mode and the blue back?”.

People will also just refer to a different term, like the extension

Censoring the phrase “the extension” would be hard anyways, because people couldn't talk about the extension policy, the extensions in Scratch Lab, or the extension button.

I don't really think this would be a helpful change. If we block “no-no word” then people will just start calling it something else. And besides, I don't really think an all-out censorship is necessary. The goal of the extension policy was to prevent people from endorsing extensions in the worry that they would become malicious. If we were to block “no-no word”, then by the same token we should also block all references to computer viruses, since those are also something I would assume the Scratch Team does not condone installing, and then you can see how this would quickly spiral out of control.

off topic, but if somebody made an actual browser extension called “No-No Word” it would be the ultimate pro gamer move.
seriously, though, please don't anybody actually do that lol
because it would also be the ultimate getting-you-banned move.

You can refer to “no-no” word a lot of different way
People will just use something else

Fun_Cupcake_i81 wrote:

I don't really think this would be a helpful change. If we block “no-no word” then people will just start calling it something else. And besides, I don't really think an all-out censorship is necessary. The goal of the extension policy was to prevent people from endorsing extensions in the worry that they would become malicious.

Then any kind of talk related to endorsing the use of browser extensions including getting around not being able to name them should be discouraged, whether someone says “no-no word” or something else.

D-ScratchNinja wrote:

Fun_Cupcake_i81 wrote:

I don't really think this would be a helpful change. If we block “no-no word” then people will just start calling it something else. And besides, I don't really think an all-out censorship is necessary. The goal of the extension policy was to prevent people from endorsing extensions in the worry that they would become malicious.

Then any kind of talk related to endorsing the use of browser extensions including getting around not being able to name them should be discouraged, whether someone says “no-no word” or something else.

Could you give an example of endorsing an extension vs simply talking about it?

ajskateboarder wrote:

D-ScratchNinja wrote:

Fun_Cupcake_i81 wrote:

I don't really think this would be a helpful change. If we block “no-no word” then people will just start calling it something else. And besides, I don't really think an all-out censorship is necessary. The goal of the extension policy was to prevent people from endorsing extensions in the worry that they would become malicious.

Then any kind of talk related to endorsing the use of browser extensions including getting around not being able to name them should be discouraged, whether someone says “no-no word” or something else.

Could you give an example of endorsing an extension vs simply talking about it?

Endorsing an extension: No-no word is really great! You should download it! It has dark mode and a leave studio button, and many other things too,
Talking about it: Yeah, I use no-no word, that's why I have dark mode.

ideapad-320 wrote:

(#79)
Endorsing an extension: No-no word is really great! You should download it! It has dark mode and a leave studio button, and many other things too,
Talking about it: Yeah, I use no-no word, that's why I have dark mode.

Your 2nd one endorsed it due to mentioning darkmode. removing that part would be just talking about it.