Scratch

The current policy is this:

when gf clicked
forever if <<(post) contains (scratchblocks)> and <<(scratchblocks) not [relevant]> and <not <demonstrating script>>>>
remove content and notify author
end

jvvg wrote:

The current policy is this:

when gf clicked
forever if <<(post) contains (scratchblocks)> and <<(scratchblocks) not [relevant]> and <not <demonstrating script>>>>
remove content and notify author
end

However, if the blocks are at all related to the topic at hand, they are allowed.
Blockspam just stands for block spam, as in spam with blocks.

(Also, sorry for the blockspam in my post  )

But posts which just demonstrate a script aren't very common, and even if a post does just have a script, they could easily bypass the filter.
And technically your blocks are related to the topic at hand, so it isn't blockspam.

((No, how would you abbreviate blockspam? XP))

jvvg wrote:

I am completely against a filter that would censor posts with only scratchblocks in them for the reason I said above: if someone is demonstrating a script.

While blockspam is common, why make everybody else suffer for it? Pretty much every feature on this site has the potential for abuse (such as inappropriate projects, inappropriate images on the forums, the [big] tag on the 2.0 forums, etc.) Instead of just banning the features altogether or placing extreme limits on them, just report it of someone abuses them.

It's not a censor - If the post has just blocks, the system just makes sure that the user isn't trying to blockspam, and if he's not, submit the post.

jvvg wrote:

Hyperbola wrote:

jvvg wrote:

I am completely against a filter that would censor posts with only scratchblocks in them for the reason I said above: if someone is demonstrating a script.

While blockspam is common, why make everybody else suffer for it? Pretty much every feature on this site has the potential for abuse (such as inappropriate projects, inappropriate images on the forums, the [big] tag on the 2.0 forums, etc.) Instead of just banning the features altogether or placing extreme limits on them, just report it of someone abuses them.

It's not a censor - If the post has just blocks, the system just makes sure that the user isn't trying to blockspam, and if he's not, submit the post.

Any automated system that will block a post based on its content is a censor. In this case, it censors out posts that only contain [scratchblocks].
It would also be fairly easy to get around the censor like this:

Code:

[b][/b]
[scratchblocks]
some blockspam
[/scratchblocks]

As I said, it would not block the post, only display a confirmation message.
(Also [removed] is a good example of where this would help)

I just saw two more instances of accidental blockspam. I think this would help.

Firedrake969 wrote:

What if this happened:

OP wrote:

How do I make the sprite move 10 pixels right?

Whoever answers wrote:

change x by (10)

I've done something like that before.

As I've said, they could easily bypass it.

kayybee wrote:

How about this doesn't apply in HwS or QaS?

+1

Hyperbola wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

What if this happened:

OP wrote:

How do I make the sprite move 10 pixels right?

Whoever answers wrote:

change x by (10)

I've done something like that before.

As I've said, they could easily bypass it.

Blockspammers also could.

Hyperbola wrote:

firedrake969_test wrote:

Hyperbola wrote:

As I've said, they could easily bypass it.

Blockspammers also could.

...
This suggestion is to stop unintentional blockspammers, like people who think scratchblocks look interesting and blindly copy
[scratchbloсks]
when gf clicked
repeat until <(timer) > [10]>
   go to [mouse-pointer v]
end
think [Scripts in your posts!] for (3) secs
[/scratchbloсks]
without reading the part about the testing thread.

Because blockspam is most often part of another post (with text that isn't in a [scratchblocks] tag), this will not really stop much. Also, most blockspam is intentional.

Hyperbola wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Hyperbola wrote:

...
This suggestion is to stop unintentional blockspammers, like people who think scratchblocks look interesting and blindly copy
[scratchbloсks]
when gf clicked
repeat until <(timer) > [10]>
   go to [mouse-pointer v]
end
think [Scripts in your posts!] for (3) secs
[/scratchbloсks]
without reading the part about the testing thread.

Because blockspam is most often part of another post (with text that isn't in a [scratchblocks] tag), this will not really stop much. Also, most blockspam is intentional.

This is intentional? This is?

If the user doesn't finish reading the part where it says "To try out scratchblocks, go here", they probably won't have any idea what the message that comes up is saying. Remember that the users who you are trying to stop are new users, who haven't been on this site long enough to know what blockspam is. If you give them a message asking if they still want to make the post, even if it has [scratchblocks] in it, they will most likely just click yes, not knowing what is going on. The filter will not really stop them, it will just confuse them.

Then, for the intentional blockspammers, they don't care if their post is considered spam. They will continue to post it anyway. I should also point out that often, their goal is just to be annoying for the sake of being annoying. If this filter is implemented, then you will be playing straight into their hands. When they see a filter implemented that will annoy users posting legitimate scripts, they will have succeeded in their goal of annoying people.

Finally, from a technical perspective, at least with the current forum system, there is no good way to do a confirmation dialog after parsing a post. It would require a fair amount of code restructuring. I also am fairly sure that on DjangoBB (for Scratch 2.0), the system is similar (DjangoBB is basically FluxBB copied into Python), so it would take a while to code. While they are coding this filter (which would take a while because there is no existing infrastructure to do this yet), they are not coding other things, such as 19 other bugs and missing features on the forums or 134 bugs and missing features on the site.