#ScratchWontListen movement
I want this to be here, but should it?
♥PrincessPandaLover Talk | Contributions | Scratch Account 00:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- 1. Only, like, 10 people actually support this protest, and it isn't even noticable enough to get on this page. 2. It is disrespectful and promotes destructive critism and tries to defend themselves by saying that the ST "doesn't accept critism."
-iviedwall- ‖ talk contributions 🐱 10:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's worth noting this thread is nearly four years old now. I have seen plenty of criticism that the ST isn't listening to users, but not in any sort of organized movement. In general this article focuses more on the controversial topic itself rather than any movements about it (for example, for removing the ability to see unshared projects via API we didn't describe it as "#ConsiderCollabs" even though that was a rallying point for a lot of users, and for April Fools we didn't title it "Don't Ban Fun"). It may be worth having a general section on complaints the ST doesn't listen to users, but we need to be careful not to have it just turn into a vent section or be misleading - every decision the ST makes has a reason and the reason is never "they're a bunch of evil people who love making your life hard." Of course people may disagree with the reasons, but they are never malicious and rarely apathetic.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's worth noting this thread is nearly four years old now. I have seen plenty of criticism that the ST isn't listening to users, but not in any sort of organized movement. In general this article focuses more on the controversial topic itself rather than any movements about it (for example, for removing the ability to see unshared projects via API we didn't describe it as "#ConsiderCollabs" even though that was a rallying point for a lot of users, and for April Fools we didn't title it "Don't Ban Fun"). It may be worth having a general section on complaints the ST doesn't listen to users, but we need to be careful not to have it just turn into a vent section or be misleading - every decision the ST makes has a reason and the reason is never "they're a bunch of evil people who love making your life hard." Of course people may disagree with the reasons, but they are never malicious and rarely apathetic.
.png){kind=small}
Cat Block Removal
 Resolved (since an unknown date)
|
|---|
Would the removal of cat blocks be notable enough to go there? They were only a temporary AF feature. 
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 08:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Should the studio comment thread limit be added?
| Resolved (since an unknown date)
|
|---|
Recently, a pull request on the Scratch-WWW Github was merged (added), and it's very controversial, as shown through the comments of the pull request. Should it be added to the list? (Edit: The code has not been rolled out yet, so we should see if the limit actually makes it, and then add it if neccesary)
TheGlassPenguin | 👤Userpage | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🆂 Main Site Profile | 19:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it should be added when the new studios reach the main site and a lot of Scratchers state they are against it. Currently, 47-ish people have disliked the initial comment on GitHub, which is not a huge amount compared to that loads of people have expressed that they wanted cat blocks to return and other controversial things that have happened involving Scratch.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 05:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Add the whole Forum April Fools' Ban thing
| Resolved (since an unknown date)
|
|---|
- topic:587977 Especially:
- topic:588085
- topic:589133
- A lot of the recent discussion in this studio
Dhuls (Talk|927 Contributions|Scratch) 23:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't exactly see where the links go. What is "the whole Forum April Fools' Ban thing?" I can try to help here if you could provide me with more info.
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk | contribs) 02:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- In the first thread linked, a user asked how far could joke topics go on April Fools' Day. cheddargirl later replied stating that they weren't allowed since some users spammed on previous April Fools' Days, to a lot of disagreement. Paddle2See stated on that same thread that while the spam had gone too far, he the more thought out topics should stay. He also said there would be a meeting to come to an agreement.
- Another user created a suggestion asking to not ban April Fools' Day topics. Users came up with suggestions to help reduce the spam and drowning out of real questions and stuff. cheddargirl closed the topic, stating
| “ | I don't think an activity that is severely disruptive can be counted as fun.
I also don't think it's appropriate to justify being severely disruptive on April Fool's Day just because you were helping others on the forums (that's kind of a shallow reason to be helping others anyway). I also think you can still find fun using studios and projects for April Fool's Day. |
” |
- Many users are angry about the situation, protesting in their signatures and stuff.
Dhuls (Talk|927 Contributions|Scratch) 05:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I would wait to see what would happen. If the topics get banned, users will be outraged, and that would be the perfect time to add that to the wiki. If not, it would be a bit strange to add "that one time @cheddargirl* said April Fools topics weren't allowed but she was wrong." Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- They got banned entirely
- Personally, I would wait to see what would happen. If the topics get banned, users will be outraged, and that would be the perfect time to add that to the wiki. If not, it would be a bit strange to add "that one time @cheddargirl* said April Fools topics weren't allowed but she was wrong."
- Many users are angry about the situation, protesting in their signatures and stuff.
| “ | We understand your frustration and want to be sure everyone can have fun on April Fools, but the whole forum moderation team agrees that previous years were much too spammy. That includes me and Paddle2See. We're still discussing what we think an optimal solution might be and will update you as soon as we can. In the meantime, I'd like to ask that you not come to us individually trying to get a ruling from us. While you're allowed to ask us to reconsider things, we make decisions as a team and its disrespectful to try to pit us against each other. We'll let you know when we've decided on a suitable arrangement. | ” |
– Harakou | ||
- Dhuls (Talk|927 Contributions|Scratch) 16:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Intriguing. Yeah, I'd agree on adding it, but I'd probably hear from someone more active on the site first before adding the info. Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk | contribs) 18:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Intriguing. Yeah, I'd agree on adding it, but I'd probably hear from someone more active on the site first before adding the info.
Support. I think it's worth mentioning since it's now been addressed by three Scratch Team members (and is causing a lot of backlash), but it should be stressed that it isn't final. Maybe it should also be added to the April Fools' Day article. 
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support same as Jackson49. This is something important that should be included on this page and the April Fools day page.
CrazyBoy826 | Talk | 8,242 edits | Scratch 23:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 23:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Someone told me they decided to allow April Fools Day with restrictions. Should the April Fools Day ban remain? If we keep it, we'd have to rename it to something weird like "cheddargirl said april fools day would be banned but it wasn't" or something weird like that. The contents would have to be changed to something like, "The users were frustrated for about a week until the Scratch Team announced that April Fools topics will not be banned." Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Someone told me they decided to allow April Fools Day with restrictions. Should the April Fools Day ban remain? If we keep it, we'd have to rename it to something weird like "cheddargirl said april fools day would be banned but it wasn't" or something weird like that. The contents would have to be changed to something like, "The users were frustrated for about a week until the Scratch Team announced that April Fools topics will not be banned."
Do you have a specific linkable source for this? "Somebody told me" isn't exactly a verifiable claim. jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, yes. Someone just edited the article, linking this post, and changing the wording a bit. So I guess it's resolved. Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 16:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Even though the ST ended up picking a compromise that (I hope) everyone finds acceptable, it was still a controversial topic leading up to that. And it is certainly possible that a number of people will think that the decision is too restrictive, but that's just speculation and we shouldn't put that in the article unless it actually happens. jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Even though the ST ended up picking a compromise that (I hope) everyone finds acceptable, it was still a controversial topic leading up to that. And it is certainly possible that a number of people will think that the decision is too restrictive, but that's just speculation and we shouldn't put that in the article unless it actually happens.
Citation 40
| Resolved (since an unknown date)
|
|---|
What's going on? I'm confused about why it links to index.php - not only is it a redlink, index.php has nothing to do with the content. 
han614698 talk • contribs (2,173) • profile 12:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- A bot accidentally removed the link to the deletion log. I have added the original link back, but pointing to the deleted page in the log rather than a specific time. Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
April Fools
| Resolved (since an unknown date)
|
|---|
What do we do with the April Fools topic category in this article, now that we know that April Fools is happening? Is it worth keeping on there? 
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 09:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes it is worth keeping because of this:
- "Some controversies on this list were controversial in the past but are either no longer considered controversial or no longer applicable. They are still included in this article for historical purposes."
Scratchgodo (Talk|Contributions|Scratch) 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Controversial franchises section
 Unresolved (see all...)
|
|---|
Two items of this page about controversial user-generated content/franchises, about inappropriate content featuring FNAF and over-abundance of Warriors, are not in the same subsection. I think user-generated content is quite distinct than controversial features of Scratch Website or the project page, so I think they should be moved into a new subsection about controversial franchises. There is also a commented-out section on Undertale content which could be placed in the section whilst still commented out. Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 10:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. Not to mention, Squid Game content is banned entirely -- perhaps it could be added.
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 16:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
GWDFI's restrictions
GWDFI has been temporarily closed off due to its users constantly breaking the Community Guidelines. Many of its users seem to be very upset over this, and are worried it'll be gone for good.
Should we include this in this topic? It seems to cause controversy for an enormous amount of users. Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 13:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Pardon my ignorance, but what is GWDFI? jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's a popular studio that was recently closed by the Scratch Team since members were constantly using it to talk about subjects that weren't appropriate for Scratch. Personally, I don't think it's notable enough to include. Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still offtopic here, but what does GWDFI stand for? And what is the intended cause of the studio? P.S. It would also be helpful if you could link the studio.
Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 11:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've searched it (edit: found its Bulletin Board), and seems like the initials were intended for "Girls Who Don't Fit In". It had been promoted as a platform for "girls, genderfluids, transgenders, genderfae's, and non-binaries" and active since this June. There are also its variations, namely "Boys Who Don't Fit In" and "People Who Don't Fit In". The GWDFI studio remains, however it has since been restricted by the Scratch Team.
- As an outsider who rather acted as a reporter for the purposes of this discussion, I don't feel like I am possessing the full capability to judge its merit and inclusion in the page based on the discussion, and I don't consider myself very involved with the Forums right now - heck, my interest in Scratch is mostly confined to the Wiki-related stuff nowadays. However, based on my similar experiences, it's rather enjoying popularity and does not seem credible enough to establish notability - especially not as a "Controversial Topic". It may be considered as a Project or Studio Trend, I think.
ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 15:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still offtopic here, but what does GWDFI stand for? And what is the intended cause of the studio? P.S. It would also be helpful if you could link the studio.
- It's a popular studio that was recently closed by the Scratch Team since members were constantly using it to talk about subjects that weren't appropriate for Scratch. Personally, I don't think it's notable enough to include.
While I won't be sharing my personal opinion about this studio here, I don't think this is important enough to deserve a section on this article. After all, the Scratch Team closed it due to Community Guideline violations which 1) do we want to highlight, and 2) adding this to this article would mean adding every single ban or block ever issued that received retaliation. It makes sense that people are frustrated over it, but it's still an issue stemming from poor actions and moderation.
KangaCoder talk • contribs • profile 22:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Advertising Be Added?
A lot of people believe that advertising is bad, while a lot of people do it. I think, that if F4F is here, advertising should be as well. 
ThisIsTemp1 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ThisIsTemp1 I agree.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,173) • profile 00:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Added! ThisIsTemp1 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
