No, this is not a duplicate, I looked. Those are either saying that people should stop saying that, or people should stop saying that it's wrong. This is an overview, I am stating the pros and cons of both because I cannot decide which one would be better so I am trying to create a middle ground. Let's start!

Stop Saying Too Confusing For A New Scratcher

Let's start off with something I got from the guideline to make a reply to topics: you don't know who's behind the avatar. Some of them could be coming from JS and other advanced languages. Also, to learn how to do Scratch you are supposed to start with simplicity, master that, branch out into new material, repeat. Then once you've got it all down you build on that then finally start learning more advanced coding. What wrong with adding more branches? If they have a question, they'll ask it! There are tutorials to help learn. Personally though, I never did anything like that, I did trial and error. Now going back to the branches thing, once they master the basics it'll be easier to figure out the new branches. I don't know about you, but I love decoding! They can go inside other projects and learn from them, that's how I learned. And that's why people should stop saying too confusing for new Scratchers. Now, the counter argument…

Saying Too Confusing For New Scratchers Is Not Wrong

Again will start off with something I got from another person, if you need to know it was VoltageGames who modified something from a post from Lightnin, he said, 'We should not raise the low floor because some have a high ceiling.' If you don't understand it it basically means: why should we make it harder to climb up the ladder if some people are at the top? We don't want people to give up coding because they went on Scratch and found it too complicated! If you mastered Scratch, then move on! Don't request things so you can go higher. Being a new Scratcher is hard, most don't know how to use almost all blocks. If we make Scratch more complicated there will be less Scratchers and the community would be more divided on how much coding you know. Almost done…

To conclude I think it greatly depends on the suggested thing to say it's too confusing or not. You shouldn't have a go to one. Actually, I kind of sound like I have a split personality. I hope I changed some of your minds. Thank you for reading!

Techno-CAT wrote:

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

..if it was you comment so I can give credit, they said, 'We should not raise the low floor because some have a high ceiling.'

source

OH, thanks! I new it was in a topic like that. I just really like the quote!

Do me now bump it? Get noticed is very goodly. Not bumping almost badly as not grammaring goodly!

I don't know, some new Scratchers and people who aren't that good with coding might still be confused by certain topics. Some might be very good at coding and can whip up a whole game in about an hour, maybe even less. Scratch is meant to be as easy as possible, so really complicated blocks and things like 3D Scratch would make it incredibly confusing, in fact, 3D Scratch was rejected for that reason.

LionHeart70 wrote:

I don't know, some new Scratchers and people who aren't that good with coding might still be confused by certain topics. Some might be very good at coding and can whip up a whole game in about an hour, maybe even less. Scratch is meant to be as easy as possible, so really complicated blocks and things like 3D Scratch would make it incredibly confusing, in fact, 3D Scratch was rejected for that reason.

Yes, but New Scratchers could avoid those blocks (after all, when I first started, I avoided Lists and Custom Blocks, because I didn't understand them). After they get better, and start understanding more, they could branch out to more complicated stuff, and learn. If everything was extremely bare-bones simple, once you've mastered all the easy blocks, there'd be nothing left to strive for on the website itself, at which point you'd move on. I feel like it's good to have more complicated stuff allowed on Scratch; after all, transitioning from Scratch to another programming language is still fairly difficult, as there's sometimes a huge leap in complexity. The more complex stuff is on Scratch, the higher someone could “climb up the ladder” before “jumping” to the next one.

WolfCat67 wrote:

LionHeart70 wrote:

I don't know, some new Scratchers and people who aren't that good with coding might still be confused by certain topics. Some might be very good at coding and can whip up a whole game in about an hour, maybe even less. Scratch is meant to be as easy as possible, so really complicated blocks and things like 3D Scratch would make it incredibly confusing, in fact, 3D Scratch was rejected for that reason.

Yes, but New Scratchers could avoid those blocks (after all, when I first started, I avoided Lists and Custom Blocks, because I didn't understand them). After they get better, and start understanding more, they could branch out to more complicated stuff, and learn. If everything was extremely bare-bones simple, once you've mastered all the easy blocks, there'd be nothing left to strive for on the website itself, at which point you'd move on. I feel like it's good to have more complicated stuff allowed on Scratch; after all, transitioning from Scratch to another programming language is still fairly difficult, as there's sometimes a huge leap in complexity. The more complex stuff is on Scratch, the higher someone could “climb up the ladder” before “jumping” to the next one.

That's very true.

Guys, this isn't a debate, it's an overview but I like the ideas your stating and the support. I guess you can agree with one topic but if you disagree with one, I'm gonna have to argue.

Wait a second, when this had more recent posts then my other topics, how did it sink below? Glitch? Also, this is a bump. Or is it? Bump, bump, buuuump!

When your topic loses popularity you gotta bump,
To get it noticed
Don't you think a bump can also be a lump
I do, you?

Don't answer that, that was a short poem(?)

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

Guys, this isn't a debate, it's an overview but I like the ideas your stating and the support. I guess you can agree with one topic but if you disagree with one, I'm gonna have to argue.

-1

You don't post an overview based on your opinion and not expect debate.

MathlyCat wrote:

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

Guys, this isn't a debate, it's an overview but I like the ideas your stating and the support. I guess you can agree with one topic but if you disagree with one, I'm gonna have to argue.

-1

You don't post an overview based on your opinion and not expect debate.

Is that a reason to warrant a no support. Did I ever say that I was going to not expect a debate. I said I won't agree if you agree with one, but I will argue if you disagree with one.

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

Guys, this isn't a debate, it's an overview but I like the ideas your stating and the support. I guess you can agree with one topic but if you disagree with one, I'm gonna have to argue.

-1

You don't post an overview based on your opinion and not expect debate.

Is that a reason to warrant a no support. Did I ever say that I was going to not expect a debate. I said I won't agree if you agree with one, but I will argue if you disagree with one.

If you expected it, why act like it shouldn't be there?

Guys, this isn't a debate…

MathlyCat wrote:

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

MathlyCat wrote:

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

Guys, this isn't a debate, it's an overview but I like the ideas your stating and the support. I guess you can agree with one topic but if you disagree with one, I'm gonna have to argue.

-1

You don't post an overview based on your opinion and not expect debate.

Is that a reason to warrant a no support. Did I ever say that I was going to not expect a debate. I said I won't agree if you agree with one, but I will argue if you disagree with one.

If you expected it, why act like it shouldn't be there?

Guys, this isn't a debate…

There are one sided topics,completely open to debate. I expected it, but it's not really challenging anything or anyone. So didn't I just state the obvious? An overviews is both sides, can have debate, but not meant for it. On the other hand, a one sided essay completely open to argument and challenging people people to a debate.
See my point? 1000+ posts, you must have seen something like this before. (Not trying to be mean…)

OK, here's an extremely ugly visual representation that I made in MS Paint in three minutes:

Imagine the user is climbing the Scratch ladder (the one on the right), and they have to jump to the next one to use another programming language. At first, they just can't; it's extremely difficult for them. However, as they climb higher to more complex projects, it becomes easier to jump to the other ladder that allows for more complexity. What's wrong with making the size of the ladder for them bigger? It would still be easy for people just starting out, but if they wished, they could keep climbing higher to the point where transitioning to the next ladder is easy. I hope that makes sense to everyone.

WolfCat67 wrote:

OK, here's an extremely ugly visual representation that I made in MS Paint in three minutes:

Imagine the user is climbing the Scratch ladder (the one on the right), and they have to jump to the next one to use another programming language. At first, they just can't; it's extremely difficult for them. However, as they climb higher to more complex projects, it becomes easier to jump to the other ladder that allows for more complexity. What's wrong with making the size of the ladder for them bigger? It would still be easy for people just starting out, but if they wished, they could keep climbing higher to the point where transitioning to the next ladder is easy. I hope that makes sense to everyone.

I really like it! It seems like a very good visual presentation, perfect!

We shouldn't underestimate a new Scratcher's ability to learn. That's what they're here for on Scratch.

However, we can make things easier for a new Scratcher to learn by changing the wording of blocks so they resemble real life more than other programming languages or allowing simpler workarounds if a new Scratcher doesn't understand a concept yet.

Sheep_maker wrote:

We shouldn't underestimate a new Scratcher's ability to learn. That's what they're here for on Scratch.

However, we can make things easier for a new Scratcher to learn by changing the wording of blocks so they resemble real life more than other programming languages or allowing simpler workarounds if a new Scratcher doesn't understand a concept yet.

So your agreeing with both? Thanks for your view on the topic!

3 2 1 BUMP!!! Supercalifragulousexepealadocious, did I spell it right? Antidisestablishmentarianism… That's the longest word I think… These are some of the shortest words: I, A, Hi…

Smurphy13AWESOME wrote:

3 2 1 BUMP!!! Supercalifragulousexepealadocious, did I spell it right? Antidisestablishmentarianism… That's the longest word I think… These are some of the shortest words: I, A, Hi…

No, it's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. (Yes, I know how to spell it off the top of my head.) Also, the longest word is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Look at how amazingly constructive this post was.