bump
king no edit

Bump and support

Support if it's only two people: users could make group chats to exclude a specific person from their conversations

iiucandyfloss wrote:

Support if it's only two people: users could make group chats to exclude a specific person from their conversations

And what’s wrong with that?
Say that there is a project 10 users are working on. 5 of the 10 work on designs, the other 5 work on code. There is a group chat with only the first 5 to discuss the designs specifically. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

starlightsparker wrote:

iiucandyfloss wrote:

Users could make group chats to exclude a specific person from their conversations

And what’s wrong with that?
Say that there is a project 10 users are working on. 5 of the 10 work on designs, the other 5 work on code. There is a group chat with only the first 5 to discuss the designs specifically. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I'm not talking about making a conversation relevant to specific people, I'm referring to making a direct comment thread purely because they want to exclude someone else.

Situation 1 wrote:

Let's say that there is a group of 4 friends. They start getting to know another user, but realise that they don't like them, because they are new to Scratch and don't participate in trends, so they're seen as uncool.They treat each other like best friends still, effectively misleading the 5th friend and making them feel happy inside. However, they don't really like them, they're just waiting for an opportunity to kick them right out of their circle.

This group chat feature is implemented. There's a comment thread started by one user in the group saying, ‘Comment thread with my friends’ and invites the other three people, but not the 5th one. The 5th one sees that the thread has a ‘Direct messages’ tag on it, and assumes that they're added. But oh no, they are wrong.

Situation 2 wrote:

A user is in an ‘aesthetic community’ studio. They make a Direct Messaging Thread, checkmarking the name of every user in the studio and leaving out one person. You see, that one person was ‘not aesthetic enough’ according to a manager, but they added the user regardless, because their admissions policy was set out very strictly by the studio host.

The manager made the thread, starting it with ‘Direct messaging thread for announcements. Let’s discuss it together '. The thread was for announcements but they allowed everyone except one user. If it was just for the host and a specific manager, it would make sense. If it was managers and host only, it would make sense. If it was for curators only, it would make sense. If it's for everybody in the studio except one person, it's suspicious.

bump

What's the benefit over profile comments?

If someone else is commenting and you don't want them to, you can just delete their comments, ignore them, or ask them to stop. There's no obligation to interact with them. This really seems like a non-issue to me.

iiucandyfloss wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

iiucandyfloss wrote:

Users could make group chats to exclude a specific person from their conversations

And what’s wrong with that?
Say that there is a project 10 users are working on. 5 of the 10 work on designs, the other 5 work on code. There is a group chat with only the first 5 to discuss the designs specifically. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I'm not talking about making a conversation relevant to specific people, I'm referring to making a direct comment thread purely because they want to exclude someone else.

Situation 1 wrote:

Let's say that there is a group of 4 friends. They start getting to know another user, but realise that they don't like them, because they are new to Scratch and don't participate in trends, so they're seen as uncool.They treat each other like best friends still, effectively misleading the 5th friend and making them feel happy inside. However, they don't really like them, they're just waiting for an opportunity to kick them right out of their circle.

This group chat feature is implemented. There's a comment thread started by one user in the group saying, ‘Comment thread with my friends’ and invites the other three people, but not the 5th one. The 5th one sees that the thread has a ‘Direct messages’ tag on it, and assumes that they're added. But oh no, they are wrong.

Situation 2 wrote:

A user is in an ‘aesthetic community’ studio. They make a Direct Messaging Thread, checkmarking the name of every user in the studio and leaving out one person. You see, that one person was ‘not aesthetic enough’ according to a manager, but they added the user regardless, because their admissions policy was set out very strictly by the studio host.

The manager made the thread, starting it with ‘Direct messaging thread for announcements. Let’s discuss it together '. The thread was for announcements but they allowed everyone except one user. If it was just for the host and a specific manager, it would make sense. If it was managers and host only, it would make sense. If it was for curators only, it would make sense. If it's for everybody in the studio except one person, it's suspicious.

Scratchers would then feel upset if they were excluded. The ST will not implement this.

AHypnoman wrote:

(#27)
What's the benefit over profile comments?

If someone else is commenting and you don't want them to, you can just delete their comments, ignore them, or ask them to stop. There's no obligation to interact with them. This really seems like a non-issue to me.

you can't delete forum posts yourself, though, what if there if someone that keeps bossing around your collaboration as if they own it and there's nothing you can do about it

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

(#27)
What's the benefit over profile comments?

If someone else is commenting and you don't want them to, you can just delete their comments, ignore them, or ask them to stop. There's no obligation to interact with them. This really seems like a non-issue to me.

you can't delete forum posts yourself, though, what if there if someone that keeps bossing around your collaboration as if they own it and there's nothing you can do about it

If someone is harassing you, the report button or contact us could be used, although I've never seen what you've described happening.

AHypnoman wrote:

(#30)
If someone is harassing you, the report button or contact us could be used, although I've never seen this happening.

they're not harrasing, they're just saying stuff as if they were part of the collab when i never hired them and I'm not planning on doing so. they're saying stuff like “change the name to ___” or “change it to ___ or it's not official”

scratchcode1_2_3 wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

(#30)
If someone is harassing you, the report button or contact us could be used, although I've never seen this happening.

they're not harrasing, they're just saying stuff as if they were part of the collab when i never hired them and I'm not planning on doing so. they're saying stuff like “change the name to ___” or “change it to ___ or it's not official”

This is getting into the nuances of what is or is not considered harassment - I'd consider that spam, so by extension harassment, though I don't know what the ST's policy is with regard to that kind of commenting.

Also, is this something that has happened to you (I'm assuming so given the way you've written your post, but clarification would be helpful - not asking you to name people, obviously)

AHypnoman wrote:

(#32)
This is getting into the nuances of what is or is not considered harassment - I'd consider that spam, so by extension harassment, though I don't know what the ST's policy is with regard to that kind of commenting.

Also, is this something that has happened to you (I'm assuming so given the way you've written your post, but clarification would be helpful - not asking you to name people, obviously)

yes this is currently kinda happening to me but that's kinda offtopic lets continue in my profile if you wanna keep talking about it

How big could a group chat get? I think big ones (like 10+ people) shouldn't be made possible since those can get full of comments really fast, plus you have to reply to one specific person, you can't @ multiple people to notify them all or make a comment to the group at large without @ing multiple people (even if @ing someone notified them).

iiucandyfloss wrote:

How big could a group chat get? I think big ones (like 10+ people) shouldn't be made possible since those can get full of comments really fast, plus you have to reply to one specific person, you can't @ multiple people to notify them all or make a comment to the group at large without @ing multiple people (even if @ing someone notified them).

5, perhaps?

this is direct messaging (dm- i just figured that out lol) so its private the point is that it can only be seen by another person. this does not really fix it, its basicly just if some one can see something but cant do it. so its a see but not touch situation

Cool_kid092 wrote:

this is direct messaging (dm- i just figured that out lol) so its private the point is that it can only be seen by another person. this does not really fix it, its basicly just if some one can see something but cant do it. so its a see but not touch situation

It’s not private if it’s not private.
This is indeed a solution to the rejection, as it is rejected because private messaging is, well, private, which this is not.

Related topic: a “curators only” option for studio comments.

hotcrystal wrote:

Not sure if this was already mentioned, but adding this would also solve this: https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/discuss/topic/756779/

Bump

That's an interesting idea, especially when you need to discuss something between a small group of people and don't want anyone trying to butt in.