Even if using the expression “nono word” to reference a Browser Extension, it can still do harm, because I've seen a lot of cases of users recommending other users to install “nono word”, which kinda defeats the point of the original policy.

Mockup:
Download (removed by moderator - please don't say the nono word) to get dark mode!

NotK3ndricAlt wrote:

Mockup:
Download (removed by moderator - please don't say the nono word) to get dark mode!

i-

Those users after taking the other user's advice:


Anyways, do you think it would be fine if they referenced the extension but didn't try to get people to install it?

MythosLore wrote:

-snip-
Anyways, do you think it would be fine if they referenced the extension but didn't try to get people to install it?

Personally, I believe “no-no word” is a bypass of the actual extension, just like removing the C in the name of a blue-ish chatting app, so it shouldn't be used at all.

i_eat_coffee wrote:

MythosLore wrote:

-snip-
Anyways, do you think it would be fine if they referenced the extension but didn't try to get people to install it?

Personally, I believe “no-no word” is a bypass of the actual extension, just like removing the C in the name of a blue-ish chatting app, so it shouldn't be used at all.

But wouldn't it be fine if someone simply talked about the blurple app without inviting people to join their server, similar to how it would be fine if someone talked about the extension without trying to get people to install it?

People using the nono word to refrence the blue bird now:
Download X!
Anyways, i support.

Are you also proposing that sentences like the following should be banned? Or are there some which are okay while others are not?

There isn't any way to get dark mode for Scratch unless you use a browser extension.

You should download a browser extension to get dark mode for Scratch!

Some Scratchers use browser extensions to get dark mode, but we cannot say which ones because that violates the Scratch Team's policy on browser extensions.

theresnopurpose wrote:

the last two are ones I do not agree with, and the first one would be okay if it's more focused on the first part of the sentence
(im i_eat_coffee's alt)

Interesting. I identify the first one as more encouraging than the third — the first one seems to indicate to the user that they just need to download a browser extension to get dark mode, whereas I would think the third one would discourage the user from downloading a browser extension since they link the official Scratch Team policy against them.

Regardless, if some references to browser extensions are okay and others are not, then what is the line to be crossed? How will the Scratch Team know which ones to censor and which ones are okay?

I personally disagree on “banning all references to forbidden word”. There’s a better solution to this issue than just banning all of them. Maybe instead, only good references to this should be white listed, as some encourage you to follow along with the policy (source). Banning all of them will result in tons or maybe possible rants about “ST BANNED ALL REFERENCES TO NO-NO WORD!” or something like that.

No support on banning all of them because it causes not only hate, but also threats. Support on banning bad references and encouraging to download it ones.

i_eat_coffee wrote:

MythosLore wrote:

-snip-
Anyways, do you think it would be fine if they referenced the extension but didn't try to get people to install it?

Personally, I believe “no-no word” is a bypass of the actual extension, just like removing the C in the name of a blue-ish chatting app, so it shouldn't be used at all.

Personally, I disagree with that, as “no-no word” can be used for other reasons, not just extensions.
For example:

Example guy wrote:

there are zero no-no words in the audio. This was checked once. Checked twice. Checked so many times
that Santa would be jealous.

the use of “no-no word” is not referencing an extension; it is assuring the viewer that an otherwise inappropriate piece of audio has been censored.

I say that “no-no word” is fine. There is no reason to just ban it outright; as you might want to mention a plugin, not advertise it.

Yes please. It gets on my nerves for some reason…

Elijah999999 wrote:

Yes please. It gets on my nerves for some reason…

But then users won’t be able to list the number of reasons a audio in a project or content has some no-no things included in it. Banning it outright is DEFINITELY not an option (unless necessary if all alternatives are abused).

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

Elijah999999 wrote:

Yes please. It gets on my nerves for some reason…

But then users won’t be able to list the number of reasons a audio in a project or content has some no-no things included in it. Banning it outright is DEFINITELY not an option (unless necessary if all alternatives are abused).

just say “swear words” or “inappropriate words” directly

i_eat_coffee wrote:

just say “swear words” or “inappropriate words” directly

I still don’t think it’s a good idea to just outright ban all references though.

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

i_eat_coffee wrote:

just say “swear words” or “inappropriate words” directly

I still don’t think it’s a good idea to just outright ban all references though.

The cases in which people are encouraging users to add “no-no word” to their browser are increasing, as I have seen.
Plus, users might just see the reference, and try to look it up for themselves.

And as I have mentioned, I think of it as the equivalent of removing a letter in a chatting app name to bypass the filter. (most of the times)

i_eat_coffee wrote:

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

i_eat_coffee wrote:

just say “swear words” or “inappropriate words” directly

I still don’t think it’s a good idea to just outright ban all references though.

The cases in which people are encouraging users to add “no-no word” to their browser are increasing, as I have seen.
Plus, users might just see the reference, and try to look it up for themselves.

And as I have mentioned, I think of it as the equivalent of removing a letter in a chatting app name to bypass the filter. (most of the times)

That’s true. But as I mentioned before, banning all of them isn’t a good or permanent solution to an issue. If the ST in this case separated the two different phrases used in this case that are good can be whitelisted, while the bad ones are blacklisted and censored. Only a few would be allowed, and not more than the recommended ones used in a comment or sentence in a post.

You could use no-no word to sensor no-no word :trollface:

wikibro300000 wrote:

You could use no-no word to sensor no-no word :trollface:

That’s basically just censoring the same word though.

Yeah, encouraging a kid who doesn't know anything about online safety to download some extension that you can't say the name of is still not a good idea. Also, many people probably won't get the joke.

If you really want to say something about a particular browser extension, the third sentence from #8 is probably the best thing to say.