Censoring shouldn't affect share dates

Tunde123

qloakonscratch wrote:
Tunde123 wrote:
Censoring isn't unsharing a project. It is blocking specific things from people's view.
When does it say it's specifically about unsharing?

https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/post/6240752/

I was responding to this post.

sharkode

xXNambaseWahspTVXx wrote:
(#60)
k0d3rrr wrote:
xXNambaseWahspTVXx wrote:
looks like this has been suggested before https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/352329/
jackson49 wrote:
sharkode wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
Actually, I think this might be a duplicate
No, it's not
You're right, this is about censoring, not unsharing. Sorry.
but wouldnt it have the same effect?

No, unsharing is your own decision, censoring isn't.

historical_supa

I can't believe that noone's talking about how the current thing Scratch uses when a project is censored can actually help stealers, since if a project is mass-reported, right before it gets deleted the stealer could take all the assets and take all the credit, while the original creator reshares the project and receives backlash.

sharkode

(bump)
C'mon ST! Why can't we have this already? This massively reduces the damage and confusion caused by mass reporting and I see no downsides to it!

Nambaseking01

Support. I honestly don't even see why this is a thing - it causes ambiguity and might lead Scratchers to believe that other Scratchers stole project ideas while they were the original creator of the project. And as others have already mentioned, this also ruined the share date of Weekend, which is supposedly the first project ever made on Scratch, although the share date is shown as “February 3, 2022”.

PrincessFlowerTV

Huge support. I don't understand why this wasn't a feature before, since just because it was taken down doesn't mean it's a newer project when it's re-shared.
I was very disappointed to head about “The Weekend” project being taken down. That was a Scratch achievement, of being the very first project, and unfortunately, it is impossible to prove that now. I mean, the date says it's from 2020, so it must be true. (sarcasm)
It will also prevent drama regarding what people consider “strategic mass-reporting”, where they use the taken-down project and copy it or something to get more views, and claim the original is a copy(or something like that, I never was up to date with that stuff). Keeping things clear would be fantastic.

VedanshS933

xXNambaseWahspTVXx wrote:
k0d3rrr wrote:
xXNambaseWahspTVXx wrote:
looks like this has been suggested before https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/352329/
jackson49 wrote:
sharkode wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
Actually, I think this might be a duplicate
No, it's not
You're right, this is about censoring, not unsharing. Sorry.
but wouldnt it have the same effect?

No

Epsilon_3

VedanshS933 wrote:
xXNambaseWahspTVXx wrote:
k0d3rrr wrote:
xXNambaseWahspTVXx wrote:
looks like this has been suggested before https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/352329/
jackson49 wrote:
sharkode wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
Actually, I think this might be a duplicate
No, it's not
You're right, this is about censoring, not unsharing. Sorry.
but wouldnt it have the same effect?

No

You don't need to answer a question that's already been answered.

Wolfieboy09

'Ello, I agree a lot with this mass reporting issue.

historical_supa

Wolfieboy09 wrote:
'Ello, I agree a lot with this mass reporting issue.

Then you should say why

Epsilon_3

historical_supa wrote:
Wolfieboy09 wrote:
'Ello, I agree a lot with this mass reporting issue.
Then you should say why

Probably because the mass reporters take down projects, duh.

sharkode

Ok, tons of people were saying it's a duplicate or it's too similar to an existing suggestion or other stuffs like that, this suggestion is not a duplicate and I intentionally limited it to censoring, the reason is that you can't control the censoring of your own project, but you can unshare your project. So if you unshare your project you are aware that the share date is going to change and you're willing to change it, but same thing cannot be said for censoring because it's not controlled by you.

Last edited by sharkode (May 3, 2022 01:16:31)

sharkode

VeryFamus wrote:
(#28)
sharkode wrote:
qloakonscratch wrote:
sharkode wrote:
qloakonscratch wrote:
-snip-
It's not a dupe! This one only said censoring, which means if you manually unshare your project the date would change, but that wouldn't be the case for the other suggestion.
Then that's a more universal solution. That one includes both censoring and unsharing. It's still a dupe.
It's not a dupe! I don't want to keep the original share date on manually unshared projects!
That still falls under what the original topic says. You want to restrict the changing of share dates if the project was unshared by the ST. That is included in the suggestion, therefore making this a dupe. Just because it is limited to one part doesn’t mean it is a different suggestion entirely.

I explicitly stated that I do not want to change the share date for manual unsharing, because it wouldn't be good.

Epsilon_3

sharkode wrote:
VeryFamus wrote:
(#28)
sharkode wrote:
-snip-!
That still falls under what the original topic says. You want to restrict the changing of share dates if the project was unshared by the ST. That is included in the suggestion, therefore making this a dupe. Just because it is limited to one part doesn’t mean it is a different suggestion entirely.
I explicitly stated that I do not want to change the share date for manual unsharing, because it wouldn't be good.

I'd say that's a really lousy reason.

sharkode

Epsilon_3 wrote:
(#77)
sharkode wrote:
VeryFamus wrote:
(#28)
sharkode wrote:
-snip-!
That still falls under what the original topic says. You want to restrict the changing of share dates if the project was unshared by the ST. That is included in the suggestion, therefore making this a dupe. Just because it is limited to one part doesn’t mean it is a different suggestion entirely.
I explicitly stated that I do not want to change the share date for manual unsharing, because it wouldn't be good.
I'd say that's a really lousy reason.

That could make it easier to do an exploit that I don't really want to mention because it could cause massive amounts of damage but has not been used yet.

sharkode

k0d3rrr

-removed as a mistake-

Last edited by k0d3rrr (May 7, 2022 11:08:00)

CoconutGator

bump

sharkode

Bump

CIinomania

Honestly I don't see why not. Although I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement, I doubt it would be much, and although I've never seen this exploited before, I can see how it could. In the end, the only thing going against this is the fact that it might take a bit to implement while Scratch Team works on more pressing matters, and not have a very important impact.

Discuss Scratch