Scratch

Greenatic · 2011-05-13 18:51:44

<If ( ) is a word>
This would probably be an operator block, and would be very useful, with many applications.
<If ( ) censored>
This would also be an operator, but with more limited applications. This would be used for random word generators, etc., because if you were to build a censoring script in Scratch, it would have to contain highly inappropiate words and therefore be inappropiate.
NOTE: This would use a filter like the forums', not the over-sensitive message one.

There is not currently a suggestions post but I'll make one for each if I can get enough support here.

scimonster · 2011-05-15 02:10:33

The first one I can see good uses for, but I don't really think we need the second. hmm

Greenatic · 2011-05-15 19:34:50

scimonster wrote:
The first one I can see good uses for, but I don't really think we need the second.

I agree, the uses for the second one are much fewer than the first. But it could still occasionally be useful.

Pecola1 · 2011-05-15 20:57:05

The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? tongue Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.

scimonster · 2011-05-16 00:28:54

Pecola1 wrote:
The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.

+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears. hmm

Greenatic · 2011-05-16 18:42:15

scimonster wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.
+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears.

It can't read from online, because offline Scratch users don't always have Internet access.

But at the point that someone knows how to hack Scratch that much, don't you think they would know the words anyway?

kayybee · 2011-05-16 18:46:47

Greenatic wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.
+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears.
It can't read from online, because offline Scratch users don't always have Internet access.

But at the point that someone knows how to hack Scratch that much, don't you think they would know the words anyway?

Actually, no. Hacking Scratch that much is even less than building your own block... Many younger people build their own blocks...

scimonster · 2011-05-17 05:17:37

Greenatic wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.
+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears.
It can't read from online, because offline Scratch users don't always have Internet access.

But at the point that someone knows how to hack Scratch that much, don't you think they would know the words anyway?

No.
I hack Scratch but don't know those words. smile

Pecola1 · 2011-05-17 11:47:36

scimonster wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.
+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears.

UNLESS, it read from online a page with all English words EXCEPT ones which are swear/ not nice, and it could sense if it WASN'T there. smile This would also take out spelling errors.

Pecola1 · 2011-05-17 11:49:03

scimonster wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
scimonster wrote:

+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears.
It can't read from online, because offline Scratch users don't always have Internet access.

But at the point that someone knows how to hack Scratch that much, don't you think they would know the words anyway?
No.
I hack Scratch but don't know those words.

LOL, don't know what words? You don't know what words you don't know? tongue (No don't post the words you don't know)

LS97 · 2011-05-17 11:51:05

Pecola1 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Greenatic wrote:

It can't read from online, because offline Scratch users don't always have Internet access.

But at the point that someone knows how to hack Scratch that much, don't you think they would know the words anyway?
No.
I hack Scratch but don't know those words.
LOL, don't know what words? You don't know what words you don't know? (No don't post the words you don't know)

Well, you can't really post words you don't know if you know that you don't know them, right?

scimonster · 2011-05-17 12:03:41

LS97 wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
scimonster wrote:

No.
I hack Scratch but don't know those words.
LOL, don't know what words? You don't know what words you don't know? (No don't post the words you don't know)
Well, you can't really post words you don't know if you know that you don't know them, right?

OK, this is getting offtopic and confusing. I don't know many words that become * here.

Pecola1 · 2011-05-17 12:09:24

LS97 wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
scimonster wrote:

No.
I hack Scratch but don't know those words.
LOL, don't know what words? You don't know what words you don't know? (No don't post the words you don't know)
Well, you can't really post words you don't know if you know that you don't know them, right?

Wrong, I don't know this word: lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
I don't know how many letters are in it even! I do know how many DIFFERENT letters though, do you?

LS97 · 2011-05-17 12:24:42

Pecola1 wrote:
LS97 wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:

LOL, don't know what words? You don't know what words you don't know? (No don't post the words you don't know)
Well, you can't really post words you don't know if you know that you don't know them, right?
Wrong, I don't know this word: lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
I don't know how many letters are in it even! I do know how many DIFFERENT letters though, do you?

2. There's a capital i about halfway through.
Let's get this back on topic though, I feel guilty wink

CloneCommando1 · 2011-05-17 13:18:12

So pretty much what you're saying is, it would automatically flag it as inapropriate if it was like this?

<when green flag clicked>
<say[ !@#$% ]for( 2 )secs>

Sorry, this project has been considered inapropriate for the Scratch community. Thanks and... Scratch on!

Greenatic · 2011-05-17 19:55:25

Pecola1 wrote:
scimonster wrote:
Pecola1 wrote:
The first is good, but for the second, what if someone hacks scratch and sees the code? Unless it used some kind of variable which would not show anywhere, even when inspecting.
+1, though it would probably read from online. Of course, they then find out the page with all the swears.
UNLESS, it read from online a page with all English words EXCEPT ones which are swear/ not nice, and it could sense if it WASN'T there. This would also take out spelling errors.

+This. Great idea.

That means we no longer need the censor block since the <if () is a word?> works as one.

Last edited by Greenatic (2011-05-17 19:55:56)

Greenatic · 2011-05-17 19:59:57

CloneCommando1 wrote:
So pretty much what you're saying is, it would automatically flag it as inapropriate if it was like this?

<when green flag clicked>
<say[ !@#$% ]for( 2 )secs>

Sorry, this project has been considered inapropriate for the Scratch community. Thanks and... Scratch on!

No. Imagine a script like this:

When Green Flag Clicked:
Ask ("Input?") and wait;
if <(answer) is censored> {
say ("Inappropiate input.")
}

But now that we are using <if () is a word> as the censor block, we can now do:

When Green Flag Clicked:
Ask ("Input?") and wait;
if <not <(answer) is a word>>{
say ("You input is not a word, or is deemed inappropiate.")
}

ihaveamac · 2011-05-17 20:28:19

I agree with the "<if [] has a bad word?>" (should be called that tongue ) block, but the coding could be different than other blocks. The banned word list should be encrypted. Bury it in code. Put it where no one else would guess, like the list could be put in the Dialog Design code. Just an example.

As for the "<is [] a word?>" block, it should actually be "<is [] a {number,text,boolean}?>", just like in BYOB (except BYOB has more options which most don't relate to the regular Scratch).

Greenatic · 2011-05-22 19:02:42

Should I make a suggestions post for this? Would you guys support?

Greenatic · 2011-06-03 16:09:26

bump

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2011-05-13 18:51:44

2 New Word Operators

#2 2011-05-15 02:10:33

Re: 2 New Word Operators

#3 2011-05-15 19:34:50

Re: 2 New Word Operators

scimonster wrote:

#4 2011-05-15 20:57:05

Re: 2 New Word Operators

#5 2011-05-16 00:28:54

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Pecola1 wrote:

#6 2011-05-16 18:42:15

Re: 2 New Word Operators

scimonster wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

#7 2011-05-16 18:46:47

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Greenatic wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

#8 2011-05-17 05:17:37

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Greenatic wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

#9 2011-05-17 11:47:36

Re: 2 New Word Operators

scimonster wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

#10 2011-05-17 11:49:03

Re: 2 New Word Operators

scimonster wrote:

Greenatic wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#11 2011-05-17 11:51:05

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Pecola1 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Greenatic wrote:

#12 2011-05-17 12:03:41

Re: 2 New Word Operators

LS97 wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#13 2011-05-17 12:09:24

Re: 2 New Word Operators

LS97 wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#14 2011-05-17 12:24:42

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Pecola1 wrote:

LS97 wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

#15 2011-05-17 13:18:12

Re: 2 New Word Operators

#16 2011-05-17 19:55:25

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Pecola1 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

#17 2011-05-17 19:59:57

Re: 2 New Word Operators

CloneCommando1 wrote:

#18 2011-05-17 20:28:19

Re: 2 New Word Operators

#19 2011-05-22 19:02:42

Re: 2 New Word Operators

#20 2011-06-03 16:09:26

Re: 2 New Word Operators

Board footer