cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Just a quick observation that I thought I'd point out: this suggestion actually requires two parents to confirm (one parent might not want his/her child the other to talk to the other child whereas the other child's parent is willing). So I'm curious as to how the confirmation interface would look and work here.

Like all things that couples must decide on, this will be more different. They'd talk over the pros and cons, and decide on one. I though this one would be a no-brainer. For example: One parent wants to go on vacation, but the other thinks it's too much money. They talk over the pros and cons, realize that the pros are greater than the cons, and they go on a vacation.

I think you misunderstand. Clearly this suggestion requires some kind of interface for the parent to use. How would it look like, how would the system be set up to ensure that both parents confirm that it is okay for both accounts to talk to each other? Do you have a mockup of the display? Since the children should not be able to access the display, how would the parents access it for the account? Would it require a separate account for the parent to have, or something else entirely? If parent decide that the kids should not talk to each other for some period if time, how do they revoke the confirmation?

Well, the parents wouldn't tell the child about where to change the settings. This would all be situated on the “For Parents” section. Well, if one child wants to talk to someone who hasn't selected them to be able to talk to them, then they simply cannot talk to them. If one child has selected this certain person for talking, but the other hasn't, then the two will not talk. Obviously, if the parents block majority of the kids on Scratch for talking, then the child in question is too young to understand how to explore and find the “For Parents” forum.

This doesn't seem to be very descriptive. Do you have a mockup of the display?

No, but the suggestions forum is for basic ideas for the ST to perfect. I'm sure they'll be able to pull it off if this gets added.

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Just a quick observation that I thought I'd point out: this suggestion actually requires two parents to confirm (one parent might not want his/her child the other to talk to the other child whereas the other child's parent is willing). So I'm curious as to how the confirmation interface would look and work here.

Like all things that couples must decide on, this will be more different. They'd talk over the pros and cons, and decide on one. I though this one would be a no-brainer. For example: One parent wants to go on vacation, but the other thinks it's too much money. They talk over the pros and cons, realize that the pros are greater than the cons, and they go on a vacation.

I think you misunderstand. Clearly this suggestion requires some kind of interface for the parent to use. How would it look like, how would the system be set up to ensure that both parents confirm that it is okay for both accounts to talk to each other? Do you have a mockup of the display? Since the children should not be able to access the display, how would the parents access it for the account? Would it require a separate account for the parent to have, or something else entirely? If parent decide that the kids should not talk to each other for some period if time, how do they revoke the confirmation?

Well, the parents wouldn't tell the child about where to change the settings. This would all be situated on the “For Parents” section. Well, if one child wants to talk to someone who hasn't selected them to be able to talk to them, then they simply cannot talk to them. If one child has selected this certain person for talking, but the other hasn't, then the two will not talk. Obviously, if the parents block majority of the kids on Scratch for talking, then the child in question is too young to understand how to explore and find the “For Parents” forum.

This doesn't seem to be very descriptive. Do you have a mockup of the display?

No, but the suggestions forum is for basic ideas for the ST to perfect. I'm sure they'll be able to pull it off if this gets added.

Not exactly. One of the big things when it comes to suggestion is that it has looks feasible. A lot of suggestions come our way which sound great on paper, but on a developer standpoint don't look as feasible to implement, or isn't so clear. It's why Lightning mentioned the following in his thread:

* Make sure your posts (and the subjects of your threads) are written clearly and succinctly. Take the time to illustrate points and suggestions with mockups, so viewers can get a clear picture of the issue at a glance. Try not to assume that something is obvious to us, or to anyone else.

cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

rocco32 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Just a quick observation that I thought I'd point out: this suggestion actually requires two parents to confirm (one parent might not want his/her child the other to talk to the other child whereas the other child's parent is willing). So I'm curious as to how the confirmation interface would look and work here.

Like all things that couples must decide on, this will be more different. They'd talk over the pros and cons, and decide on one. I though this one would be a no-brainer. For example: One parent wants to go on vacation, but the other thinks it's too much money. They talk over the pros and cons, realize that the pros are greater than the cons, and they go on a vacation.

I think you misunderstand. Clearly this suggestion requires some kind of interface for the parent to use. How would it look like, how would the system be set up to ensure that both parents confirm that it is okay for both accounts to talk to each other? Do you have a mockup of the display? Since the children should not be able to access the display, how would the parents access it for the account? Would it require a separate account for the parent to have, or something else entirely? If parent decide that the kids should not talk to each other for some period if time, how do they revoke the confirmation?

Well, the parents wouldn't tell the child about where to change the settings. This would all be situated on the “For Parents” section. Well, if one child wants to talk to someone who hasn't selected them to be able to talk to them, then they simply cannot talk to them. If one child has selected this certain person for talking, but the other hasn't, then the two will not talk. Obviously, if the parents block majority of the kids on Scratch for talking, then the child in question is too young to understand how to explore and find the “For Parents” forum.

This doesn't seem to be very descriptive. Do you have a mockup of the display?

No, but the suggestions forum is for basic ideas for the ST to perfect. I'm sure they'll be able to pull it off if this gets added.

Not exactly. One of the big things when it comes to suggestion is that it has looks feasible. A lot of suggestions come our way which sound great on paper, but on a developer standpoint don't look as feasible to implement, or isn't so clear. It's why Lightning mentioned the following in his thread:

* Make sure your posts (and the subjects of your threads) are written clearly and succinctly. Take the time to illustrate points and suggestions with mockups, so viewers can get a clear picture of the issue at a glance. Try not to assume that something is obvious to us, or to anyone else.

Okay, I see what you mean. I'll whip something up so we don't have to wait until you enter my brain XD

Support, may be the best thing I can give.

Okay: Two things. This option should only be open to ‘parent accounts’ which are specifically tied to child accounts. The child CANNOT access the settings for their account and cannot delete projects:in addition the parents can add a blacklist user filter, as well as a whitelist one. They can also lock the forums, editor, explore tab, front page, and project viewer.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Okay: Two things. This option should only be open to ‘parent accounts’ which are specifically tied to child accounts. The child CANNOT access the settings for their account and cannot delete projects:in addition the parents can add a blacklist user filter, as well as a whitelist one. They can also lock the forums, editor, explore tab, front page, and project viewer.

Okay, I can see where you're going with this, and I appreciate it greatly. I need all of Scratch to help me with this. Thankyou :-D

support sounds good

No support.
By “blinding” your child so that he/she can only see certain users, you remove the potential for the child to become friends with other users, even if some of those other users are bullies.
Either way, Scratch was designed with being a safe community in mind, so adding this feature would take that idea away. It's like if LEGO released sets of bricks that were could only compatible with the bricks in that particular set; it goes against the philosophy of the entire idea.

No support

FuzTheHamsta wrote:

No support

Why?

therealpsy wrote:

No support.
By “blinding” your child so that he/she can only see certain users, you remove the potential for the child to become friends with other users, even if some of those other users are bullies.
Either way, Scratch was designed with being a safe community in mind, so adding this feature would take that idea away. It's like if LEGO released sets of bricks that were could only compatible with the bricks in that particular set; it goes against the philosophy of the entire idea.

^^
For this reason, no support.

Honestly if you're not a parent or a babysitter you don't have the background to have an opinion on this suggestion.

ChocolatePi wrote:

Honestly if you're not a parent or a babysitter you don't have the background to have an opinion on this suggestion.

IMO, a babysitter shouldn't have the power to decide over who a child can talk to.

therealpsy wrote:

No support.
By “blinding” your child so that he/she can only see certain users, you remove the potential for the child to become friends with other users, even if some of those other users are bullies.
Either way, Scratch was designed with being a safe community in mind, so adding this feature would take that idea away. It's like if LEGO released sets of bricks that were could only compatible with the bricks in that particular set; it goes against the philosophy of the entire idea.

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.
2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.
3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Side note: People don't like this suggestion because they know that their parents will limit them.

Epicness123 wrote:

therealpsy wrote:

No support.
By “blinding” your child so that he/she can only see certain users, you remove the potential for the child to become friends with other users, even if some of those other users are bullies.
Either way, Scratch was designed with being a safe community in mind, so adding this feature would take that idea away. It's like if LEGO released sets of bricks that were could only compatible with the bricks in that particular set; it goes against the philosophy of the entire idea.

^^
For this reason, no support.

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.
2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.
3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Side note: People don't like this suggestion because they know that their parents will limit them.

Why would they? It's scratch! there is a filter for bad words, and I do agree about you said. you should at least be able to talk to her.

Firedrake969 wrote:

ChocolatePi wrote:

Honestly if you're not a parent or a babysitter you don't have the background to have an opinion on this suggestion.

IMO, a babysitter shouldn't have the power to decide over who a child can talk to.

A babysitter has opinions on what children should be able to do, because they watch them and take care of them sometimes.

Random kids on the internet don't get to support or no-support this suggestion, because they just don't know what kids are like when they're out of control.

Heck, I don't get to have an opinion! Only people with experience with kids do.

No support based on below.

rocco32 wrote:

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.

That doesn't seem to solve the problem, and it's rather vague. Does this mean the child can't comment on the user's projects? Or will they not see replies to their comments by that user? Or are comments on that user's projects and profile disabled for that child?

rocco32 wrote:

2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.

True, but Scratch isn't just random people doing random things. There are moderators who check the site for bad things, and report buttons for everything. Even if something inappropriate is posted, it doesn't stay up for long.

rocco32 wrote:

3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Actually, there is, and Scratch already does it.
There are automatic phone number and e-mail filters that catch 99% of these things, and the other 1% get reported. Additionally, it's a strong point in Scratch's Community Guidelines not to share personal info, and to report things that ask people to do so.
Additionally, users receive an alert every time that they do something like ask or share personal info telling them to stop, and those that continue to do it (usually spambots) are blocked.

I think restricting access like this goes against Scratch's principles in the same way that creating a 7/13/14/18/X-and-up site does - it splits the community and goes against Scratch's purpose: to create a safe environment where anyone and everyone can collaborate, create, share, remix, and view peoples' works.

Yes, maybe people would limit themselves in going into the “For Parents” section and only allow certain people to talk to them, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. For example, what if there were to be a Scratch bully? Yes, you can report them and make studios so everyone can tell the bully to stop, but what if you could just straight up block him? Now, this doesn't mean that you won't be able to see their profile and such, but they just couldn't talk to you and you can't talk to them.

Bullies do appear (as they do anywhere else), but they get reported (making studios against it is usually considered Naming and Shaming).
Blocking users has also been suggested and rejected many times before.

Tymewalk wrote:

No support based on below.

rocco32 wrote:

1. It's not that they can't see other users, it's just that they can't talk to them.

That doesn't seem to solve the problem, and it's rather vague. Does this mean the child can't comment on the user's projects? Or will they not see replies to their comments by that user? Or are comments on that user's projects and profile disabled for that child?

rocco32 wrote:

2. You seem to miss the point. Imagine this: A parent lets their child go with a stranger somewhere so that the child may become friends with that stranger. That just doesn't happen. A parent is doing this to protect the child, and in no way means for that child to be antisocial. The parent simply wants the child safe.

True, but Scratch isn't just random people doing random things. There are moderators who check the site for bad things, and report buttons for everything. Even if something inappropriate is posted, it doesn't stay up for long.

rocco32 wrote:

3. Yes, but people STILL miss the fact that if you have something online, that has comments, there's ALWAYS bullies and strangers that will twist an 7 year old's mind into giving away personal information, there's nothing, absolutely NOTHING that you can do about it.

Actually, there is, and Scratch already does it.
There are automatic phone number and e-mail filters that catch 99% of these things, and the other 1% get reported. Additionally, it's a strong point in Scratch's Community Guidelines not to share personal info, and to report things that ask people to do so.
Additionally, users receive an alert every time that they do something like ask or share personal info telling them to stop, and those that continue to do it (usually spambots) are blocked.

I think restricting access like this goes against Scratch's principles in the same way that creating a 7/13/14/18/X-and-up site does - it splits the community and goes against Scratch's purpose: to create a safe environment where anyone and everyone can collaborate, create, share, remix, and view peoples' works.

Yes, maybe people would limit themselves in going into the “For Parents” section and only allow certain people to talk to them, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. For example, what if there were to be a Scratch bully? Yes, you can report them and make studios so everyone can tell the bully to stop, but what if you could just straight up block him? Now, this doesn't mean that you won't be able to see their profile and such, but they just couldn't talk to you and you can't talk to them.

Bullies do appear (as they do anywhere else), but they get reported (making studios against it is usually considered Naming and Shaming).
Blocking users has also been suggested and rejected many times before.

1. For the child, no, they can post on projects, there's just no reply button for anyone else, unless the parents have that certain person selected. Yes, the commenting on the profile would be turned off for the child's profile, but the people the parents selected can comment.
2. Again, I've had to say this many times. Yes, they get reported, but quite often, it doesn't get taken down in time. And other people see it, too.
3. I've seen this around. I tested the Bad-Word detector. Here's how it went: I typed in a common name, a swear word, and an Email address. It didn't stop me from posting it, and of course, I removed them, but I still got the alert with all of the things I said. I can agree with you on this, but it doesn't stop you from posting it right away. For the second part, I can also somewhat agree. But, what would you rather have: A community that is barley effected (because let's be honest, if kids wanted to talk to everyone, they wouldn't tell their parents about this system), or have unhappy parents? My mother still isn't completely sure about letting me use this website at all. When I'm making my projects, it takes a long time. So she just assumes that I'm always talking to people, so she doesn't believe me when I say that I'm only talking about projects, sounds, collabs, ect.
4. I've seen that blocking has been rejected before, and I'm definitely against that suggestion as well. But, like I recall, "Again, I've had to say this many times. Yes, they get reported, but quite often, it doesn't get taken down in time. And other people see it, too.".

No support. If you know this child personally, can't you just talk to them IRL? In most usual situations, this feature would only be used for either letting your child only talk to people they know or blocking certain people from contacting your child. In the first scenario, it's likely the people they'll know on scratch are people they'll know in real life, so they can just talk to them there pretty easily. In the second scenario, you have a suggestion that I'm pretty sure has been rejected.