Welcome to the Official Host Transfer Topic of the Christian HQ!

** Please read the forum topic https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/751030/ Before making a post! **

What is the purpose of this topic?

As we all know, our founder, @Blaze349 and numerous other managers have served this studio faithfully in the last decade of our existence as a studio (or what was then known as galleries) Every day, they woke up, logged on to scratch, and dedicated their time to our beloved studio. Until one day, our good lord decided to call them elsewhere, somewhere beyond Scratch.

as a result, Christian HQ has suffered many tragedies, trials and hardships that could have been easily prevented if those people were still here at Christian HQ. And as the days progress, it is becoming more and more impossible to manage a studio with managers only limited to the powers ST had taken away from us (known as Manager's Rights)

And the sad reality is, unless God tells our founders otherwise, they are simply not coming back to the studio. Them not coming back to the studio means that the situation is only going to get worst— until we do something about it.

The solution to our problems

About a month ago, I created a Forum topic (the topic mentioned above) asking if the ST will ever reimplement Manager Rights (the ability for managers to preform tasks like editing the studio description, thumbnail, and closing down the comments in addition to what managers can do now) I written this considering how the removal of Manager Rights hurts studios like Christian HQ. @Za-Chary, a former member of ST replied by saying

Za-Chary wrote:

-Expo wrote:

do you know if or when ST will reimplement Manager Rights (i.e. Editing the thumbnail and description)?

They will not.

-Expo wrote:

this feature is hurting studios who's owner has gone inactive.

A manager of such a studio can use Contact Us to request for the studio host to be changed.

Za-Chary wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Assuming I take that path, who would be selected as the host if there are multiple managers?

You and the other managers should decide who would be a good fit. The Scratch Team will likely ask to verify that active managers of the studio accept your (collective) choice for the new host.

Managers who have agreed so far:

When you agreed, say it in the discussion
-Expo
Mathboss12
Jets-fan-2187
help_the_animals
Jonathan50
superherosusan

There is a possibility that we could add more stages if the process feels rushed. Make sure to pray extra hard about this! <3

CURRENT STAGE: STAGE 1

Mathboss12 wrote:

Yep I agree. The only change I might make is that we maybe won’t give blaze ownership again? But idk

-Expo wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

Yep I agree. The only change I might make is that we maybe won’t give blaze ownership again? But idk

If he consents. I feel like it would only be fair if he came back we should at least offer him the position again. But then again, what is the likelihood that he is actually going to come back?

Jets-fan-2187 wrote:

Alright, tell me more. Just FYI, please don’t do anything else until May 6, since it’s Holy Week soon for the Orthodox. I would suggest Johnathan to be the host, and if not him Expo, but at the moment I’m to busy to type up anything else

-Expo wrote:

Jets-fan-2187 wrote:

Alright, tell me more. Just FYI, please don’t do anything else until May 6, since it’s Holy Week soon for the Orthodox. I would suggest Johnathan to be the host, and if not him Expo, but at the moment I’m to busy to type up anything else

Jonathan is hardly active at Christian HQ. So if anything happened there would be no real-time response

Mathboss12 wrote:

I do like the idea Kate brought up about having the managers change weekly. I know large studios such as GWDFI use that concept.
Maybe we could have a schedule or something so that managers can tell the other managers when or if they plan on being inactive, to avoid our current situation from repeating itself.
The weekly system definitely lightens the load on the owner, so they don’t have to do the VOTW, QOTW, QOTM by themselves all the time.
If we don’t use the weekly system though, we should definitely have an owner and a vice owner, to whom the ownership could be transferred to in case of any absence of the host.

Another thing: if we elect one host, will that person have more authority in the studio, or will that person simply have the added responsibilities of updating the description?

Jonathan50 wrote:

Ok. I agree (to whatever everyone else decides). I would have said that it probably doesn't matter whether the host is active all the time, since it'll just involve changing the description (and transferring host-ship when needed), except we may well keep the QOTW part of the description (having a list of managers is superfluous).

Jets-fan-2187 wrote:

Alright, tell me more. Just FYI, please don’t do anything else until May 6, since it’s Holy Week soon for the Orthodox. I would suggest Johnathan to be the host, and if not him Expo, but at the moment I’m to busy to type up anything else

-Expo wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Ok. I agree (to whatever everyone else decides). I would have said that it probably doesn't matter whether the host is active all the time, since it'll just involve changing the description (and transferring host-ship when needed), except we may well keep the QOTW part of the description (having a list of managers is superfluous).

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
| Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between each post |
└──────────────────────────────────┘



Most of all, closing down comments. That is what I am concerned about.

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Ok. I agree (to whatever everyone else decides). I would have said that it probably doesn't matter whether the host is active all the time, since it'll just involve changing the description (and transferring host-ship when needed), except we may well keep the QOTW part of the description (having a list of managers is superfluous).

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
| Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between each post |
└──────────────────────────────────┘



Most of all, closing down comments. That is what I am concerned about.

I don’t really remember us needing to close comments but yeah that’ll definitely be a benefit.

-Expo wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Ok. I agree (to whatever everyone else decides). I would have said that it probably doesn't matter whether the host is active all the time, since it'll just involve changing the description (and transferring host-ship when needed), except we may well keep the QOTW part of the description (having a list of managers is superfluous).

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
| Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between each post |
└──────────────────────────────────┘



Most of all, closing down comments. That is what I am concerned about.

I don’t really remember us needing to close comments but yeah that’ll definitely be a benefit.

I don't want to grieve the HQ by saying what happened, but yes. There has been times since march that we needed to shut the comments down, which was frankly more or less brought upon by ourselves.

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Ok. I agree (to whatever everyone else decides). I would have said that it probably doesn't matter whether the host is active all the time, since it'll just involve changing the description (and transferring host-ship when needed), except we may well keep the QOTW part of the description (having a list of managers is superfluous).

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
| Sorry, you have to wait 60 seconds between each post |
└──────────────────────────────────┘



Most of all, closing down comments. That is what I am concerned about.

I don’t really remember us needing to close comments but yeah that’ll definitely be a benefit.

I don't want to grieve the HQ by saying what happened, but yes. There has been times since march that we needed to shut the comments down, which was frankly more or less brought upon by ourselves.

Ok

-Expo wrote:

Most of all, closing down comments. That is what I am concerned about.

Jonathan50 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Most of all, closing down comments. That is what I am concerned about.

Oh yeah it's been so long since managers could do that, I forgot you can do that. Right. In that case I suggest not-me. Expo maybe (though that isn't for stage 1 to decide).