Ban studios, users, collabs and projects for stopping f4f and ads or any other related subject

DarthVader4Life

sharkode wrote:
DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#279)
sharkode wrote:
GoboThePlant wrote:
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.
So your logic is “this is legal so people shouldn't be allowed to criticise it”
For the last time, NO.
The logic isn't “ban anti-f4f/ads”, it's “get rid of the stuff actively trying to harass and spam people that do f4f and ads”.
This doesn't seem like what the suggestion is saying.

What I said is what the suggestion is saying, you misinterpreted the suggestion.

mcsquaggle

advertising is frowned upon as it can take up storage and the comment section.
If you find anyone breaking the comment section rules, just report the comment!

lapisi

DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#281)
sharkode wrote:
DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#279)
sharkode wrote:
GoboThePlant wrote:
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.
So your logic is “this is legal so people shouldn't be allowed to criticise it”
For the last time, NO.
The logic isn't “ban anti-f4f/ads”, it's “get rid of the stuff actively trying to harass and spam people that do f4f and ads”.
This doesn't seem like what the suggestion is saying.
What I said is what the suggestion is saying, you misinterpreted the suggestion.

in that case this suggestion should be closed as implemented as harassment and spam is against the rules anyways

Gato_Amigo111

I'd honestly have to agree. Since these things follow the cg, they are fine. People must respect your opinions, as stated by the cg. That includes you doing f4f and ads.

Last edited by Gato_Amigo111 (April 7, 2022 20:13:01)

Gato_Amigo111

lapisi wrote:
DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#281)
sharkode wrote:
DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#279)
sharkode wrote:
GoboThePlant wrote:
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.
So your logic is “this is legal so people shouldn't be allowed to criticise it”
For the last time, NO.
The logic isn't “ban anti-f4f/ads”, it's “get rid of the stuff actively trying to harass and spam people that do f4f and ads”.
This doesn't seem like what the suggestion is saying.
What I said is what the suggestion is saying, you misinterpreted the suggestion.
in that case this suggestion should be closed as implemented as harassment and spam is against the rules anyways

No, this suggestion is saying that people who make studios to trash f4f and ads or the people that participate in them should be banned or deleted. This is because people who do f4f and ads feel harased. This isn't spam, it's a legitimate suggestion.

lapisi

Gato_Amigo111 wrote:
(#285)
lapisi wrote:
DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#281)
sharkode wrote:
DarthVader4Life wrote:
(#279)
sharkode wrote:
GoboThePlant wrote:
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.
So your logic is “this is legal so people shouldn't be allowed to criticise it”
For the last time, NO.
The logic isn't “ban anti-f4f/ads”, it's “get rid of the stuff actively trying to harass and spam people that do f4f and ads”.
This doesn't seem like what the suggestion is saying.
What I said is what the suggestion is saying, you misinterpreted the suggestion.
in that case this suggestion should be closed as implemented as harassment and spam is against the rules anyways
No, this suggestion is saying that people who make studios to trash f4f and ads or the people that participate in them should be banned or deleted. This is because people who do f4f and ads feel harased. This isn't spam, it's a legitimate suggestion.

I'm not saying this is spam, I was saying that the thing it's suggesting to ban (harassment and spam) is already against the rules, meaning it's implemented

BionicBoy554

Alright, even if I'm late, I just want to ask something.
Does this include anti-Add Everything projects, studios, etc?

KaaBEL_sk

BionicBoy554 wrote:
Alright, even if I'm late, I just want to ask something.
Does this include anti-Add Everything projects, studios, etc?

It's also not against CG, some people hate it and tries stoping it, I would say that also depends on how much anti it is and what way.
Actualy would be nice if you had an example. That's what's missing and brigs there misunderstanding of whole thread/suggestion (I think).

TheSmartGuy1234

Celebration bump!

FINALLY FOUND THIS!!! AFTER LOOKING FOR HALF A YEAR!!!

and bookmarked it

TheSmartGuy1234

GoboThePlant wrote:
snip
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.
-snip-
.

BTW scratch uses CC-BY-SA 2.0, just saying

sharkode

GoboThePlant wrote:
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.

So? They're complaining about a rule, which shouldn't be prohibited, the ST aren't tyrants are they?

LightBoy77

GoboThePlant wrote:
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.
People can have their own opinions on stuff like this. For example, I personally hate generic platformers, but a lot of people do.

Discuss Scratch