Scratch

Spaghetticat wrote:

The-Whiz wrote:

Spaghetticat wrote:

Again I said LIMITED MODERATION!Limited means anything that might vaugely seem innapropriate will not be taken off but stuff thats actually harmful will.

Still, there are little kids on this site, and while vaguely inappropriate things might not bother YOU, what will little kids think? You're not the only person on this site! As you said yourself, there are many different definitions of inappropriate; you have to abide by the rules of what defines inappropriate for the youngest people.

Even young children have their own definition of "innapropriate" as well.Vaugely innapropriate things  they may not even be able to detect or care about.

MAY. Most 5 year olds don't year swear words regularly.

Spaghetticat wrote:

wiimaster wrote:

Spaghetticat wrote:

I said you must think a bunch of jerks and complete demons are on scarcth if THATS you scenarrio.Again I said LIMITED MODERATION!Limited means anything that might vaugely seem innapropriate will not be taken off but stuff thats actually harmful will.And what do you mean "I've never seen"For your information i have been on sites with NO rules or the rules aren't properly and i agree there was MASS CHAOS!BUT IM SAYING LIMITED RULES NOT TOTTALY RESTRICTIVE RULES THAT ARE COMPLETE RUBBISH((trust me i've seen em on many sites))

Ummm

Ok then...?

Limited rules wouldn't do much good either... there would still be innapropriate stuff?

And yes, I do think a bunch of jerks and complete demons are on Scratch because its true and we can't let them get what they want: The ability to post innapropriate stuff, no matter how limited.

I cant belive this.....would you people just listen to me for 5 seconds?
What do you mean when you say no matter how limited.I think of limited as being able to use words like stu.pid and dum.b and not get flagged for it and being able to gie criticism without being slammed not cursing like a sailor.

Stupid and dumb are not flagged... *facepalm* And have you ever heard of something called "CONSTRUCTIVE Criticism"? It's where instead of saying
"This project sucks!!!!11!!"
you say
"This project could be a little better; why don't you do this:___?"

Last edited by The-Whiz (2010-06-27 14:01:09)

Spaghetticat wrote:

The-Whiz wrote:

I only see TWO people on this thread that want less restrictive rules! That's NOT a large group! Less restriction leads to parents not allowing smaller kids onto the site, which leads to even less restrictive rules, etc. It's a vicious circle, and it will go on until the Scratch Team just gets fed up and closes Scratch down or Scratch turns into a place where trolls are all over.

2 on the THREAD not 2 on the SITE!And if the smaller kids aren't ON the site since their parents wont let them then there should be less restrivtive rules but not NO rules and I doubt the scracth team knows someone  is quitting or will change the rules because of that.

I doubt they know that you want less restrictive rules or will change the rules because of you.

Can you give me links to these so-called arguments in less restrictive rules' favor?

*face palm* how many times do i have to you a small percentage of people are on the forums!

Spaghetticat wrote:

wiimaster wrote:

Spaghetticat wrote:

I said you must think a bunch of jerks and complete demons are on scarcth if THATS you scenarrio.Again I said LIMITED MODERATION!Limited means anything that might vaugely seem innapropriate will not be taken off but stuff thats actually harmful will.And what do you mean "I've never seen"For your information i have been on sites with NO rules or the rules aren't properly and i agree there was MASS CHAOS!BUT IM SAYING LIMITED RULES NOT TOTTALY RESTRICTIVE RULES THAT ARE COMPLETE RUBBISH((trust me i've seen em on many sites))

Ummm

Ok then...?

Limited rules wouldn't do much good either... there would still be innapropriate stuff?

And yes, I do think a bunch of jerks and complete demons are on Scratch because its true and we can't let them get what they want: The ability to post innapropriate stuff, no matter how limited.

I cant belive this.....would you people just listen to me for 5 seconds?
What do you mean when you say no matter how limited.I think of limited as being able to use words like stu.pid and dum.b and not get flagged for it and being able to gie criticism without being slammed not cursing like a sailor.

And you want change why? All I see is keeping the rules the same. I seriously doubt people being flagged for those words. And people giving consructive critism shouldn't be flagged/ reported.

Why do you think Scratch is too strict?  Seriously, there are violent games on Scratch (not excessively violent) that aren't being taken off.  It sounds like you just want to be able to type up a curse word every now and then and get away with it.  Also, you keep talking like this isn't about you, that you're speaking up for loads of people who want to see more projects that might be deemed inappropriate.  I only see the two of you arguing this.  Another point is, do you think parents will care what their child's definition of inappropriate is if it goes beyond their own?

MaxtheWeirdo wrote:

Spaghetticat wrote:

wiimaster wrote:

Ummm

Ok then...?

Limited rules wouldn't do much good either... there would still be innapropriate stuff?

And yes, I do think a bunch of jerks and complete demons are on Scratch because its true and we can't let them get what they want: The ability to post innapropriate stuff, no matter how limited.

I cant belive this.....would you people just listen to me for 5 seconds?
What do you mean when you say no matter how limited.I think of limited as being able to use words like stu.pid and dum.b and not get flagged for it and being able to gie criticism without being slammed not cursing like a sailor.

And you want change why? All I see is keeping the rules the same. I seriously doubt people being flagged for those words. And people giving consructive critism shouldn't be flagged/ reported.

BUT THEY ARE BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY ITS MEAN!

Spaghetticat, I don't understand why you're still arguing for this when the vast majority of people here are against you...

Last edited by The-Whiz (2010-06-27 14:08:13)

Spaghetticat wrote:

MaxtheWeirdo wrote:

Spaghetticat wrote:

I cant belive this.....would you people just listen to me for 5 seconds?
What do you mean when you say no matter how limited.I think of limited as being able to use words like stu.pid and dum.b and not get flagged for it and being able to gie criticism without being slammed not cursing like a sailor.

And you want change why? All I see is keeping the rules the same. I seriously doubt people being flagged for those words. And people giving consructive critism shouldn't be flagged/ reported.

BUT THEY ARE BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY ITS MEAN!

And that is the problem there. Is there anything in the ToU about constructive criticism?

EDIT: I just checked. It says to post constructive comments. That umbrella covers constructive critisism. If you ever see that happen, redirect that person to the ToU.

Last edited by MaxtheWeirdo (2010-06-27 14:12:20)

I see eight people there. HAve they actually said anything in favor or are you just listing random names?

Spaghetticat wrote:

The-Whiz wrote:

Spaghetticat wrote:

*face palm* how many times do i have to you a small percentage of people are on the forums!

You still haven't given me any people in favor of less restrictive rules except you and sanddude.

Ok heres a list

fludd
trickster210
EIF
Kyote
chickmagnet112
bboy72
mudkip27
tomX5

want me to go on?

*Checks Community Stats

560,316 registered members.

I count 8 people in that list.

Dream on. 

The-Whiz wrote:

OK Let's figure this out.

2 supporters on this thread    ≈25 non-supporters on this thread
-------------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------------
8 supporters total                 ≈100 non-supporters total

100 > 8.

100 > 8 = overall win = argument won = defence wins = end of argument.

markyparky56 wrote:

The-Whiz wrote:

OK Let's figure this out.

2 supporters on this thread    ≈25 non-supporters on this thread
-------------------------------------- = -----------------------------------------------
8 supporters total                 ≈100 non-supporters total

100 > 8.

100 > 8 = overall win = argument won = defence wins = end of argument.

Having most people agree with one side of an argument shouldn't end it.