ocular rewritten

so, we all know it was rejected.
But, reading the rejection, i have seem to have found the sulution to the rejection.
So basically, instead of the limit being 10 for cloud lists and 10 for cloud variables (why it was rejected) it should be 10 CLOUD VARIABLES AND CLOUD LISTS COMBINED

Even one cloud list would still easily allow for cloud chat and other uses that the Scratch Team does not want to see. Cloud lists would also use a lot more computation power than cloud variables to manage, since updating a numerical cloud variable is just updating one primitive piece of data, while lists are complex data types.

jvvg wrote:

Even one cloud list would still easily allow for cloud chat and other uses that the Scratch Team does not want to see. Cloud lists would also use a lot more computation power than cloud variables to manage, since updating a numerical cloud variable is just updating one primitive piece of data, while lists are complex data types.

Someone could probably find a way to stop cloud chats. And they're not that common anyway.

LP372 wrote:

Someone could probably find a way to stop cloud chats. And they're not that common anyway.

You're forgetting the fact that cloud lists aren't rejected just because of the easier ability to make cloud chats, the bandwidth required to run cloud variables is already incredibly high and is one of the highest resource costly thing the scratch team does.

LP372 wrote:

Someone could probably find a way to stop cloud chats.

What do you have in mind for that? This is a case of “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. It's much easier to remove the way to make cloud chats entirely than to find them after the fact, and the potential for harm to the Scratch community from cloud chats is very high, while the benefits of cloud lists are not particularly high.

LP372 wrote:

And they're not that common anyway.

They aren't common now because it's very difficult to make them. I can tell you in the alpha days of Scratch 2.0 when cloud lists did exist, there were a bunch of them, and that was only a small subset of the Scratch community.

Malicondi wrote:

LP372 wrote:

Someone could probably find a way to stop cloud chats. And they're not that common anyway.

You're forgetting the fact that cloud lists aren't rejected just because of the easier ability to make cloud chats, the bandwidth required to run cloud variables is already incredibly high and is one of the highest resource costly thing the scratch team does.

read the OP

LP372 wrote:

Someone could probably find a way to stop cloud chats. And they're not that common anyway.

So far, no one's found a way to prevent people from creating cloud chats. The only way is reporting them for takedown after they've been created. I guess until then, cloud lists will stay rejected.

As for them not being common, that's kind of the purpose of rejecting cloud lists. Because it's currently so difficult to create a cloud chat without cloud lists, there isn't too many of them. And just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean that it should be allowed. Although profanity only makes up of 0.5% of what people say, that doesn't mean it should be allowed on the site.

LP372 wrote:

read the OP

having just one cloud list could make hundreds of cloud variables, because lists can have multiple items. The same point stands.

I assume these lists will only be able to store 0.1 kilobytes