I have been invited to one of these unsensible studios. These studios, however, are stating that being “fame hungry” is frowned (specifically f4f and ads which are rejected). They also comply that Scratch is a backward, “toxic wasteland”(lol) website which is not true. The pandemic caused a spike in the user count, thus proportionally increasing “toxic” users.
For wantings of examples, here it is from multiple studios I have found.

-if you see someone stealing art/code/ect. you can kindly ask them to give credit to the original creator or asking nicely to stop

In most scenarios, them defines as a Scratcher you are unfamiliar with, therefore yielding this as true.

The SSA is trying to save Scratch by stopping false reporters, haters, fame-seekers,

Because people are banning me in my other accounts.

“False” reporters can take down a project, but they don't necessarily “ban” Scratchers (most targeting famous ones). Fame is allowed because you can use it as motivation.

Scratch is losing its wonderful Scratchers.

The quote above is exaggerating the loss caused by toxicness while Scratch's user count is increasing due to the pandemic but also increasing toxic users and users.

Many people are leaving because of the system being run down over time and people trying there best to advertise

Advertising and f4f are allowed as per here; although you can set custom rules for your profile and property as studios, projects etc.

This is a quote given by a project.

A project which only contained a square, grass and spikes could get up to 5000 loves. A platformer, an exact copy of others and only colours were changed, got on trending. Is this what we are looking for?

This contradicts the remixing policy; you are allowed to build, redistribute and share any intellectual property on Scratch by the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). If you share any intellectual property on Scratch, you are giving users the automatic privilege of building on your property only if they give appropriate credit to the original distributor of the built property. Therefore, the project can be treated as a restriction on recolors/remixing.

If you believe that none should remix/recolor, you are allowed to not share your property as in the Scratch website.

I am not stating to ban any collaboration/project/studio against cyber-bullying. Furthermore, I don't want to ban personal opinions (ex. “In my opinion, fame is bad”) The only thing that I want to ban is media directing all users to retain fame (ex. “You shouldn't look for fame”) and the arguments that I enlisted above.


==
FAQ

But you can report media that gives false information.

This is a much more common trend (#SFFF {stop fighting for fame} and other variations) than simple comments, therefore, we should ban it.

A typical uncultured studio ranting about fame will contain lists (ex. ads, f4f, fame chasing).

Support, as they endorse things that break ToU, such as no recoloring/remixing and stuff, and yeah, ban f4f ((aka rejected))

not all do tho

ittybitmap wrote:

not all do tho

hmm yes but

I'm in that studio! I think they are a great way to support the anti-bullying cause, so No Support!

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

I'm in that studio! I think they are a great way to support the anti-bullying cause, so No Support!

Yes but they handle a lot of lies…

GoboThePlant wrote:

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

I'm in that studio! I think they are a great way to support the anti-bullying cause, so No Support!

Yes but they handle a lot of lies…

Okay, maybe a studio against F4F wouldn't be okay. On the other hand, a studio against bullying? Don't ban that!

Could you give hypothetical examples of studios that you'd like to see removed? For whatever reason, I'm not sure I fully understand the title of your post (particularly “collaborations that impose faulty subjective rules of controversial topics”).

Za-Chary wrote:

Could you give hypothetical examples of studios that you'd like to see removed? For whatever reason, I'm not sure I fully understand the title of your post (particularly “collaborations that impose faulty subjective rules of controversial topics”).

He had an example before, but removed it for some reason. I happen to curate the studio they mentioned, so I can give you the link.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but the same people who create these types of studios might overreact when they find out that Scratch is “cracking down” on them. Maybe the policy is fine as is to prevent hysteria.

Za-Chary wrote:

Could you give hypothetical examples of studios that you'd like to see removed? For whatever reason, I'm not sure I fully understand the title of your post (particularly “collaborations that impose faulty subjective rules of controversial topics”).

I support this suggestion (because this stuff usually spreads fake rumours and unnecessary drama) and am good at making hypothetical situations so here I go:

• *person remixes art project with different colours*
  
• Artist 1: They stole my art! Recolours are bad!
  
• *Artist 1 makes an exaggerated studio spreading rumours and hate against recolours
  
• Artist 2, 3, 4, and 5: OMG that is so bad
  
• *Remixer finds studio and defends themselves*
  

And that's the drama that could be unnecessarily caused

These studios were meant to make the now-garbage community once again hypoallergenic and nontoxic. So NO SUPPORT.

1Oaktree2 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Could you give hypothetical examples of studios that you'd like to see removed? For whatever reason, I'm not sure I fully understand the title of your post (particularly “collaborations that impose faulty subjective rules of controversial topics”).

I support this suggestion (because this stuff usually spreads fake rumours and unnecessary drama) and am good at making hypothetical situations so here I go:

• *person remixes art project with different colours*
  
• Artist 1: They stole my art! Recolours are bad!
  
• *Artist 1 makes an exaggerated studio spreading rumours and hate against recolours
  
• Artist 2, 3, 4, and 5: OMG that is so bad
  
• *Remixer finds studio and defends themselves*
  

And that's the drama that could be unnecessarily caused

^^^^^^^^^^
this

1Oaktree2 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Could you give hypothetical examples of studios that you'd like to see removed? For whatever reason, I'm not sure I fully understand the title of your post (particularly “collaborations that impose faulty subjective rules of controversial topics”).

I support this suggestion (because this stuff usually spreads fake rumours and unnecessary drama) and am good at making hypothetical situations so here I go:

• *person remixes art project with different colours*
  
• Artist 1: They stole my art! Recolours are bad!
  
• *Artist 1 makes an exaggerated studio spreading rumours and hate against recolours
  
• Artist 2, 3, 4, and 5: OMG that is so bad
  
• *Remixer finds studio and defends themselves*
  

And that's the drama that could be unnecessarily caused

That is not how most ppl deal w/ that, I haven't seen any studios about that stuff.
Also stealing art usually happens when you don't just remix.

lm1996 wrote:

1Oaktree2 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Could you give hypothetical examples of studios that you'd like to see removed? For whatever reason, I'm not sure I fully understand the title of your post (particularly “collaborations that impose faulty subjective rules of controversial topics”).

I support this suggestion (because this stuff usually spreads fake rumours and unnecessary drama) and am good at making hypothetical situations so here I go:

• *person remixes art project with different colours*
  
• Artist 1: They stole my art! Recolours are bad!
  
• *Artist 1 makes an exaggerated studio spreading rumours and hate against recolours
  
• Artist 2, 3, 4, and 5: OMG that is so bad
  
• *Remixer finds studio and defends themselves*
  

And that's the drama that could be unnecessarily caused

That is not how most ppl deal w/ that, I haven't seen any studios about that stuff.
Also stealing art usually happens when you don't just remix.

I have, its not ok.

Semi-support
I don't think we should impose false limitations on Scratchers (such as no F4F-ing, no Follow on-request), but I don't like those types of things, and they should be discouraged.

wait did word this correctly because some people may take this post the wrong way

sonic__fan wrote:

Semi-support
I don't think we should impose false limitations on Scratchers (such as no F4F-ing, no Follow on-request), but I don't like those types of things, and they should be discouraged.

wait did word this correctly because some people may take this post the wrong way

I think it's understandable! I got the gist of your post.

Although the ST doesn't punish those who do F4F/requested follows, it's generally frowned upon by the community (including you), which is probably enough. Even if the ST were to “crack down” on these kinds of things, it's probably so prevalent that it'd be difficult to enforce. If someone's blatantly breaking the rules (such as by being disrespectful) then users should just report these things, let the ST handle it, and move on.

In my opinion, “Save Scratch” projects/studios tend to misinterpret this dynamic (i.e. becoming vigilantes, spreading and engaging in drama, etc.) and end up becoming counterintuitive (trying to fix the problem but end up creating it.) Although these studios may not exactly be productive in solving these issues, I think users are still within their right to create them so long as they aren't breaking CGs. If they are, users can do what I said at the end of the previous paragraph: report, let the ST handle it, and move on.

Drawing back to my previous post, if the ST “cracked down” on these studios, it would probably create drama within itself (people posting “WHY ARE THEY CENSORING MY OPINION!?!?!?”)

Austinato wrote:

sonic__fan wrote:

Semi-support
I don't think we should impose false limitations on Scratchers (such as no F4F-ing, no Follow on-request), but I don't like those types of things, and they should be discouraged.

wait did word this correctly because some people may take this post the wrong way

I think it's understandable! I got the gist of your post.

Although the ST doesn't punish those who do F4F/requested follows, it's generally frowned upon by the community (including you), which is probably enough. Even if the ST were to “crack down” on these kinds of things, it's probably so prevalent that it'd be difficult to enforce. If someone's blatantly breaking the rules (such as by being disrespectful) then users should just report these things, let the ST handle it, and move on.

In my opinion, “Save Scratch” projects/studios tend to misinterpret this dynamic (i.e. becoming vigilantes, spreading and engaging in drama, etc.) and end up becoming counterintuitive (trying to fix the problem but end up creating it.) Although these studios may not exactly be productive in solving these issues, I think users are still within their right to create them so long as they aren't breaking CGs. If they are, users can do what I said at the end of the previous paragraph: report, let the ST handle it, and move on.

Drawing back to my previous post, if the ST “cracked down” on these studios, it would probably create drama within itself (people posting “WHY ARE THEY CENSORING MY OPINION!?!?!?”)

I agree, they should be discouraged, but it'd be fine if the users are following CG's. However, those “false limitations” have got to go. I don't like them. They don't bring any constructiveness whatsoever. Also, people do the whole “WhY ThEy SiLiNcInG mY VoIcE” thing already.

“Save Scratch” should still be allowed as this website IS in need of saving. Heck, it's like banning LGBT+ because it causes controversy!

Tealseagull wrote:

“Save Scratch” should still be allowed as this website IS in need of saving. Heck, it's like banning LGBT+ because it causes controversy!

Read the below quote.

Austinato wrote:

-snip-

Although the ST doesn't punish those who do F4F/requested follows, it's generally frowned upon by the community (including you), which is probably enough. Even if the ST were to “crack down” on these kinds of things, it's probably so prevalent that it'd be difficult to enforce. If someone's blatantly breaking the rules (such as by being disrespectful) then users should just report these things, let the ST handle it, and move on.

In my opinion, “Save Scratch” projects/studios tend to misinterpret this dynamic (i.e. becoming vigilantes, spreading and engaging in drama, etc.) and end up becoming counterintuitive (trying to fix the problem but end up creating it.) Although these studios may not exactly be productive in solving these issues, I think users are still within their right to create them so long as they aren't breaking CGs. If they are, users can do what I said at the end of the previous paragraph: report, let the ST handle it, and move on.

Drawing back to my previous post, if the ST “cracked down” on these studios, it would probably create drama within itself (people posting “WHY ARE THEY CENSORING MY OPINION!?!?!?”)