Catscratcher07 wrote:

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

Does the topic that I recently posted warrant as a rejection?

link?

It got dustbinned, but it was about discouraging “I hate” topic titles.

I'm pretty sure “I hate” topics are already banned, so that would be closed as already implemented, not rejected.

Oh, I see. Well, thanks for that, anyway. I wasn’t sure whether or not it was rejected.

Adding a stamping limit is also rejected.

Foldy_TPOT wrote:

Adding a stamping limit is also rejected.

That has already been stated in the posts above.

You should add a link to the download page for the older Scratch versions in 2.4

A stamping limit like for clones is now rejected as well.

Za-Chary wrote:

(Almost) no posts this whole week? Wild. I'm just going to make a short note about “Explicitly celebrate Pride Month instead of Wellness Month” seemingly being rejected:
https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/post/7995360/
https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/post/7996968/
I'm not going to add this to the list at this time because it's slightly unclear at this time as to whether the Scratch Team will be explicitly celebrating Pride Month — and I don't think Wellness Month will prevent the Scratch Team from making/featuring projects/studios related to Pride.

Good thing I didn't add this — the Scratch Team announced Pride Month. Maybe the rejected suggestion is actually “Don't celebrate Wellness Month”? Either way, I don't think I need to add it right now.

1RocK0StaR1 wrote:

Was the “Censor the Words (You get the point)” suggestion pulled back? I can't find it anywhere.

I removed it because Scratchers seemed to be using it to claim/justify that saying these words were allowed on Scratch. But they are usually referred to as “borderline offensive” for a reason — they are borderline offensive. Some Scratchers have been receiving alerts for using these words, confused due to the thought that they are “allowed,” so I removed this entry to hopefully remove this confusion.

julmik6478 wrote:

I think that “13+ version of scratch” should say “13+ or another age-resticted version of scratch” beacuse I think that other age resticted versions of scratch like 16+ or 18+ are also rejected.

It falls under “age-restricted content” anyway. 13+ is a commonly-requested age cutoff (and it is the cutoff given in the linked suggestion), so that's why I have it at 13+.

julmik6478 wrote:

Beeter workaround of 1.2 without reset timer

Thanks! I've added a link to it in 1.2.

MagicCoder330 wrote:

Another one bites the dust

https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/765154/

Thanks. I probably don't need to add this one, because as was stated in the thread, it is proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. So I think it was a bit of a misguided suggestion.

plantskym2 wrote:

Fixing mass reporting was just rejected

I wouldn't say that it was — this OP just suggests to “fix it” without providing any specific concrete solutions on how it could be fixed. So there really isn't a specific suggestion here; that's why it was closed.

teamsonic2011 wrote:

You should add a link to the download page for the older Scratch versions in 2.4

I think I had links at one point, but now it's not possible to download the Scratch 2.0 offline editor, so I figured that wouldn't be helpful at this time.

9.4 An official list of accepted suggestions
As a counterpart to the list of rejected suggestions, some Scratchers have expressed interest in compiling a list of features of Scratch that were suggested by someone, and eventually implemented. But it is not easy to tell whether a suggestion was implemented because it was suggested by Scratchers in the forums, Scratchers elsewhere, a Scratch Team member, a teacher, or someone else. In other words, every feature currently in Scratch was suggested by somebody, so such a list would just be a list of all features of Scratch.

This should be changed to “The Rejected List of Official Suggestions”

8.6 Blocking or ignoring Scratchers
This suggestion refers to an optional system that makes it so that you do not have to see comments that a particular user posts. This feature existed in Scratch 1.4, but the Scratch Team found that it buried any problems rather than solving them. Even if you block a user, that does not stop them from harassing other Scratchers. If someone is being disrespectful, be sure to report that user with the Report button, or use the Contact Us link if the situation requires more explanation.

However, a system to block users while simultaneously reporting them is NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this topic.

Can I have a example on a problem being buried? I think it would help me understand what that means a bit more. I might also find a way to fix the problem.

the change y x z block

8.8 is a good idea.
10.3 it is already too easy to show inappropriate content in projects.
9.4 declined
8.4 this should be shown, and it has nothing privacy-related.
7.6 PLEASE
7.2 ST completely ignored the suggestion. Create a 13+ version of Scratch, not turn Scratch into 13+.
7.4 This is a great idea, really. There should be Scratcher moderation, but from the older people (14+). If a project gets banned for mass reporting, it'll be able to put back up from a Scratcher, that ACTUALLY checks the projects.

I'm not doing all these though, Scratch probably won't even read this

What if Za-Chary makes a new post for TOLoRs, that way this can load quicker because fresh post, and zachary still gets to maintain tolors.

Mackadat-Official wrote:

8.8 is a good idea.
10.3 it is already too easy to show inappropriate content in projects.
9.4 declined
8.4 this should be shown, and it has nothing privacy-related.
7.6 PLEASE
7.2 ST completely ignored the suggestion. Create a 13+ version of Scratch, not turn Scratch into 13+.
7.4 This is a great idea, really. There should be Scratcher moderation, but from the older people (14+). If a project gets banned for mass reporting, it'll be able to put back up from a Scratcher, that ACTUALLY checks the projects.

I'm not doing all these though, Scratch probably won't even read this

8.8 do not claim a rejected suggestion is a good idea without demonstrating that the reasoning is wrong or suggesting a fix to its problems.
10.3 doesn't mean we should make it easier,
8.4 many people wouldn't want others to know they're banned
7.2

the rejection statement wrote:

Dividing the community by making a separate, age-restricted website would not be helpful. Potential restrictions from entering the website (such as a warning, or requiring a parent to answer math equations) would not necessarily stop an underage child from entering the 13+ website.

7.4 a) why 14+, there is no legal “adultness” threshold at that specific age
b) mass reported projects are already reviewed promptly, the tales about mass reporting that you hear on amongst the explore page crowd is mainly propaganda spread by people refusing to acknowledge that they did anything wrong.

Catscratcher07 wrote:

7.4 a) why 14+, there is no legal “adultness” threshold at that specific age

Usually not legally, but generally, some websites use 14+ as age limits for stuff and rarely even countries. Why? Likely because you start high school at 14.

starlightsparker wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

7.4 a) why 14+, there is no legal “adultness” threshold at that specific age

Usually not legally, but generally, some websites use 14+ as age limits for stuff and rarely even countries. Why? Likely because you start high school at 14.

Most sites based in the US use 13+, as that's the minimum age to sign or enter a contract

Mackadat-Official wrote:

7.2 ST completely ignored the suggestion. Create a 13+ version of Scratch, not turn Scratch into 13+.

Read the post it links to.

I found some Youtube videos with rejected suggestions:
https://youtu.be/cikJMIZEWQY?si=NHgZxEjaMlUW8t-l
https://youtu.be/ty8P1j_NVlM?si=5x9FKBzXARgFy6mh
https://youtu.be/KpP3ACdBikA?si=A2QevKmYbIpqKuWI

julmik6478 wrote:

I found some Youtube videos with rejected suggestions:
https://youtu.be/cikJMIZEWQY?si=NHgZxEjaMlUW8t-l
https://youtu.be/ty8P1j_NVlM?si=5x9FKBzXARgFy6mh
https://youtu.be/KpP3ACdBikA?si=A2QevKmYbIpqKuWI

this seems to be a Scratch version of Danny B plays' Mario Maker 2 rejected updates videos, not actual rejected suggestions, although I'm certain they would be rejected if someone actually suggested them!

Catscratcher07 wrote:

julmik6478 wrote:

I found some Youtube videos with rejected suggestions:
https://youtu.be/cikJMIZEWQY?si=NHgZxEjaMlUW8t-l
https://youtu.be/ty8P1j_NVlM?si=5x9FKBzXARgFy6mh
https://youtu.be/KpP3ACdBikA?si=A2QevKmYbIpqKuWI

this seems to be a Scratch version of Danny B plays' Mario Maker 2 rejected updates videos, not actual rejected suggestions, although I'm certain they would be rejected if someone actually suggested them!

Wait… I didn't even KNOW there was a Scratch version of that series. Welp, I'm gonna make a GD version.

SockAlternative wrote:

Can I have a example on a problem being buried? I think it would help me understand what that means a bit more. I might also find a way to fix the problem.

For example, suppose that I commented a bunch of mean things on your profile. You understandably would get annoyed by that. If you reported me for those disrespectful comments, then the Scratch Team would see them and take action against me for that. On the other hand, if you merely blocked me, that doesn't stop me from commenting mean things on other users' profiles, and it would take a longer time for the Scratch Team to put a stop to my comments.

Mackadat-Official wrote:

8.4 this should be shown, and it has nothing privacy-related.

It would be nice to respect users' wishes if they do not want others to know that they were banned.

Mackadat-Official wrote:

7.2 ST completely ignored the suggestion. Create a 13+ version of Scratch, not turn Scratch into 13+.

The Scratch Team knows what the suggestion is. Both creating a 13+ Scratch and turning Scratch into 13+ are rejected.

Mackadat-Official wrote:

7.4 This is a great idea, really. There should be Scratcher moderation, but from the older people (14+).

There are certain things that those who are 18+ can handle that those aged 14-17 are not able to handle.

Mackadat-Official wrote:

If a project gets banned for mass reporting, it'll be able to put back up from a Scratcher, that ACTUALLY checks the projects.

Scratch Team members already check these projects.

starlightsparker wrote:

What if Za-Chary makes a new post for TOLoRs, that way this can load quicker because fresh post, and zachary still gets to maintain tolors.

At the moment I don't see it as a huge issue. It's not a big deal to wait a few seconds for the topic to load.

GlitchedThrough wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

7.4 a) why 14+, there is no legal “adultness” threshold at that specific age

Usually not legally, but generally, some websites use 14+ as age limits for stuff and rarely even countries. Why? Likely because you start high school at 14.

Most sites based in the US use 13+, as that's the minimum age to sign or enter a contract

The “legal adultness” part that @Catscratcher07 mentions is relevant, though, because there is some certain Internet content that is only suitable for those aged 18+, and yet some users still post it on Scratch anyway. Since such content is not suitable for those under 18, then those younger than 18 cannot be expected to moderate this content. This is part of the reason why the Scratch Team only allows adults to moderate the website.

julmik6478 wrote:

I found some Youtube videos with rejected suggestions:
https://youtu.be/cikJMIZEWQY?si=NHgZxEjaMlUW8t-l
https://youtu.be/ty8P1j_NVlM?si=5x9FKBzXARgFy6mh
https://youtu.be/KpP3ACdBikA?si=A2QevKmYbIpqKuWI

These seem to be joke suggestions.

Shouldn't asset image hosting be here too? Or is it not rejected? (Yes I have read 10.3)