I agree, I think that if Blaze comes back, ownership should be transferred if he decides to remain active.

-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?

Blaze won't be returning anytime soon. If I remember correctly there was a mass banning years ago and the majority of managers were banned including my brother (who was one of the major managers) and I believe Blaze. Plus real life tends to get in the way when you get older and you don't have as much time you did when you were younger…

But I do agree. I think someone else needs to become the studio head.

It appears to me that the comment thread has been deleted, but it is confirmed that @Jonathan50 will not seek the role of Studio Host inasmuch as it would pull him away from his university studies. He did however recommend me to be the next Studio Host in his absence of candidacy (as per his last post). By the time we get to the point of picking and choosing, I will honor his opinion. Also, to add another yet unconfirmed confirmation

Jets-fan-2187 wrote:

… I suggest Johnathan to be the host, and if not him -Expo, but at the moment I’m to busy to type up anything else

@Jets-fan-2187 is currently observing the Orthodox Holy Week, so he cannot edit his post. To prove his confirmation of myself as Studio Host to the lolz at ST, I will use math to prove his point:

Let “p” represent @Jonathan50 being Studio Host, and let “q” represent @-Expo being studio host.

Using that logic, his statement could be mathematically interpreted like this:

Jets-fan-2187 wrote:

… p ∧ if ~p → q

Since “~p” signifies "not @Jonathan50 being Studio Host" I can prove that @Jets-fan-2187 would recommend me also as Studio Host in which I will also honor.

Not math equations on christian hq

agreed, very professional

sooo expo you’re going to be the new host?

So are you (Expo) going to be the new host?

Austin-Longbottom wrote:

So are you (Expo) going to be the new host?

Not quite yet! this process must be as collective as possible, and only 2 people spoken

So back to the original question. How exactly would hosting work?

-Expo wrote:

So back to the original question. How exactly would hosting work?

The appointed host will contact ST, linking this discussion to validate the other managers’s decision to promote them, and ask the ST to make them the new host. Blaze will be demoted to curator (as opposed to manager, because of his inactivity, which is grounds for demotion). The host will then begin the process of renovating the studio description.

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

So back to the original question. How exactly would hosting work?

The appointed host will contact ST, linking this discussion to validate the other managers’s decision to promote them, and ask the ST to make them the new host. Blaze will be demoted to curator (as opposed to manager, because of his inactivity, which is grounds for demotion). The host will then begin the process of renovating the studio description.

Thanks captain obvious, but I was more wondering about the system we were talking about earlier- switch every week or have a successive line of hosts.

-Expo wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

So back to the original question. How exactly would hosting work?

The appointed host will contact ST, linking this discussion to validate the other managers’s decision to promote them, and ask the ST to make them the new host. Blaze will be demoted to curator (as opposed to manager, because of his inactivity, which is grounds for demotion). The host will then begin the process of renovating the studio description.

Thanks captain obvious, but I was more wondering about the system we were talking about earlier- switch every week or have a successive line of hosts.

Oh lol oops. I personally vote for having a line of succession of hosts.

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

-Expo wrote:

So back to the original question. How exactly would hosting work?

The appointed host will contact ST, linking this discussion to validate the other managers’s decision to promote them, and ask the ST to make them the new host. Blaze will be demoted to curator (as opposed to manager, because of his inactivity, which is grounds for demotion). The host will then begin the process of renovating the studio description.

Thanks captain obvious, but I was more wondering about the system we were talking about earlier- switch every week or have a successive line of hosts.

Oh lol oops. I personally vote for having a line of succession of hosts.

So having Host, Vice host, Vice Vice Host, and so on. Sure, we can fix the terminology later, but yeah. I want to see what Kate thinks.

Sure I like the idea, but I really think having a weekly roster or even a montly roster would solve a lot of problems including QOTW and BVOTW blocks, if people can't think of any good ones some fresh ideas are always welcome. Reckoning we should take a list of managers who would like to be the Studio Host and see what they think, montly swaps or weekly swaps. I think then it's fairer for everyone, especially as if a long-term host suddenly went inactive it would create a problem.

However, it also brings to mind for me to remind you that when you change Studio Host you don't get demoted back to curator, so we wouldn't have to deal with scrolling down through hundreds and hundreds of curators.

Also how did my name get leaked XD now everyone is calling me Kate (not that i mind)

If someone says everything happens for a reason, a really fun thing to do is punch them in the face and say “Then this was meant to be!”

If the host hasn’t been chosen yet then I think amethyst_queen or -Expo should be host.

when green flag clicked

say [E] for (2) secs

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Sure I like the idea, but I really think having a weekly roster or even a montly roster would solve a lot of problems including QOTW and BVOTW blocks, if people can't think of any good ones some fresh ideas are always welcome. Reckoning we should take a list of managers who would like to be the Studio Host and see what they think, montly swaps or weekly swaps. I think then it's fairer for everyone, especially as if a long-term host suddenly went inactive it would create a problem.

However, it also brings to mind for me to remind you that when you change Studio Host you don't get demoted back to curator, so we wouldn't have to deal with scrolling down through hundreds and hundreds of curators.

I do like the idea of having a rotating host-ship—arghh idk. It’s hard, because you’re right, there are definitely advantages to having rotating hosts. The main reason I like the idea of a single host is for stability.
However, I do really like the advantages of having a rotating host system (QOTW & VOTW). Those problems could be avoided by simply putting suggestions in the Manager Discussion studio. Then when a QOTW/VOTW is chosen it could be something like this:

QOTW
Who influenced your Christian life the most?
(Question of the Week written by @mathboss12)

And something similar for the VOTW.

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Also how did my name get leaked XD now everyone is calling me Kate (not that i mind)

Oops hehe (#10.)

Mathboss12 wrote:

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Sure I like the idea, but I really think having a weekly roster or even a montly roster would solve a lot of problems including QOTW and BVOTW blocks, if people can't think of any good ones some fresh ideas are always welcome. Reckoning we should take a list of managers who would like to be the Studio Host and see what they think, montly swaps or weekly swaps. I think then it's fairer for everyone, especially as if a long-term host suddenly went inactive it would create a problem.

However, it also brings to mind for me to remind you that when you change Studio Host you don't get demoted back to curator, so we wouldn't have to deal with scrolling down through hundreds and hundreds of curators.

I do like the idea of having a rotating host-ship—arghh idk. It’s hard, because you’re right, there are definitely advantages to having rotating hosts. The main reason I like the idea of a single host is for stability.
However, I do really like the advantages of having a rotating host system (QOTW & VOTW). Those problems could be avoided by simply putting suggestions in the Manager Discussion studio. Then when a QOTW/VOTW is chosen it could be something like this:

QOTW
Who influenced your Christian life the most?
(Question of the Week written by @mathboss12)

And something similar for the VOTW.

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Also how did my name get leaked XD now everyone is calling me Kate (not that i mind)

Oops hehe (#10.)

I mean the stability is fair enough, it also helps CHQ to get a little more comfortable with their managers I think, as well as asking for help with things? Could also reduce the individual Studio Host's workload a lot

gasp not you revealing my name ALLEN

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Sure I like the idea, but I really think having a weekly roster or even a montly roster would solve a lot of problems including QOTW and BVOTW blocks, if people can't think of any good ones some fresh ideas are always welcome. Reckoning we should take a list of managers who would like to be the Studio Host and see what they think, montly swaps or weekly swaps. I think then it's fairer for everyone, especially as if a long-term host suddenly went inactive it would create a problem.

However, it also brings to mind for me to remind you that when you change Studio Host you don't get demoted back to curator, so we wouldn't have to deal with scrolling down through hundreds and hundreds of curators.

I do like the idea of having a rotating host-ship—arghh idk. It’s hard, because you’re right, there are definitely advantages to having rotating hosts. The main reason I like the idea of a single host is for stability.
However, I do really like the advantages of having a rotating host system (QOTW & VOTW). Those problems could be avoided by simply putting suggestions in the Manager Discussion studio. Then when a QOTW/VOTW is chosen it could be something like this:

QOTW
Who influenced your Christian life the most?
(Question of the Week written by @mathboss12)

And something similar for the VOTW.

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Also how did my name get leaked XD now everyone is calling me Kate (not that i mind)

Oops hehe (#10.)

I mean the stability is fair enough, it also helps CHQ to get a little more comfortable with their managers I think, as well as asking for help with things? Could also reduce the individual Studio Host's workload a lot

gasp not you revealing my name ALLEN

if it makes you feel better, you can call me Facundo. I just think that having one continuous host is a better idea than having multiple at one time. I have some counterpoints:

1. have you ever heard of the revolving door syndrome? Imagine a revolving door in a building. As soon as one person goes in, another immediately comes out. Having (x) managers rotate every (x) amount of time would lead to a scenario like this. The constant turnover of ownership will certainly disrupt CHQ activity, confuse the members of the studio therein, and create even more administrative overhead. In case you haven't noticed, Christian HQ is one of oldest and active religious studios in Scratch, much less the entire world, with enough followers and curators to compete with some of the biggest chatrooms in Scratch like gaehive, gwdfi, elaruu/eltro and the Griffpatchers. Most Christians don't even know that this place exists. Having a revolving door into the ownership, the highest rung of Christian HQ sounds idiotic at most, but to do this for several years is to me beyond lunacy. You guys have not considered the long term effects of this system.

2. This will create very unnecessary coordination challenges. Coordinating schedules, making smooth transitions from one owner to the next, and managing communication between all of the rotating owners of CHQ would require a * ton of effort. Effort that can be put into your school work and other things that are more important beyond Scratch. And I'm not trying to attack anybody, but if you want to talk about “effort”, let's talk about @ChristianHQTeam. Kate, how do I expect you to manage owning a studio when you can barely manage the studio account? you need to set your priorities straight before taking on ownership. And suppose if most of the other managers who wished to host were just as incompetent or more than any of the regular managers? truth be told, I hardly see most of the people in the host discussion active on Christian HQ. I know some people have their reasons, but the people who are always active on scratch seldomly pop into CHQ to even see what is going on, so how then are you going to own a studio that you half the time don't even check when you're on Scratch? The risk of miscommunication and missed responsibilities increases by much.

3. the obvious problem that I noted above is the lack of long-term vision. You know that each of us here have a deferent vision for what the Christian HQ would look like. And once you receive ownership in the revolving door system, there is no checks and balances. In essence, it becomes a free-for-all for the person who has ownership for that period of time. In case you didn't know, Christian HQ has a notorious history for manager disputes across the years. That is partially why we have the manager demotion rules.

4. Someone can easily take the host situation hostage by not transferring to the next host.

5. Knowing they won’t be in charge for long, some hosts might become complacent. They may not invest the same effort in quality control, content curation, or community management.

6. With frequent rotations, it becomes unclear who is ultimately accountable for the studio’s success. This lack of ownership could negatively impact studio quality

7. If hosts don’t get demoted back to curator, the list of inactive or former hosts could grow indefinitely. Scrolling through hundreds of curators would become cumbersome.

I agree with -Expo on the revolving owners. I don't think its a great idea. It would get chaotic and be more unhelpful if it was constantly changing.

At one point in time all of the managers were able to edit the thumbnail as well as control other aspects of ownership. It would be better to have the option of all of the managers being able to edit and change the thumbnail rather then have the studio host keep changing. Just because the studio host (owner) can change the thumb nail does not mean that they have to do the brunt of the work and figure out all of the VOTW and QOTW and what not. Managers better be helping with suggestions for that. Where are here to support and help.

-Expo wrote:

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

Mathboss12 wrote:

Bandit_MVR_2023 wrote:

<snip>

if it makes you feel better, you can call me Facundo. I just think that having one continuous host is a better idea than having multiple at one time. I have some counterpoints:

1. have you ever heard of the revolving door syndrome? Imagine a revolving door in a building. As soon as one person goes in, another immediately comes out. Having (x) managers rotate every (x) amount of time would lead to a scenario like this. The constant turnover of ownership will certainly disrupt CHQ activity, confuse the members of the studio therein, and create even more administrative overhead. In case you haven't noticed, Christian HQ is one of oldest and active religious studios in Scratch, much less the entire world, with enough followers and curators to compete with some of the biggest chatrooms in Scratch like gaehive, gwdfi, elaruu/eltro and the Griffpatchers. Most Christians don't even know that this place exists. Having a revolving door into the ownership, the highest rung of Christian HQ sounds idiotic at most, but to do this for several years is to me beyond lunacy. You guys have not considered the long term effects of this system.

2. This will create very unnecessary coordination challenges. Coordinating schedules, making smooth transitions from one owner to the next, and managing communication between all of the rotating owners of CHQ would require a * ton of effort. Effort that can be put into your school work and other things that are more important beyond Scratch. And I'm not trying to attack anybody, but if you want to talk about “effort”, let's talk about @ChristianHQTeam. Kate, how do I expect you to manage owning a studio when you can barely manage the studio account? you need to set your priorities straight before taking on ownership. And suppose if most of the other managers who wished to host were just as incompetent or more than any of the regular managers? truth be told, I hardly see most of the people in the host discussion active on Christian HQ. I know some people have their reasons, but the people who are always active on scratch seldomly pop into CHQ to even see what is going on, so how then are you going to own a studio that you half the time don't even check when you're on Scratch? The risk of miscommunication and missed responsibilities increases by much.

3. the obvious problem that I noted above is the lack of long-term vision. You know that each of us here have a deferent vision for what the Christian HQ would look like. And once you receive ownership in the revolving door system, there is no checks and balances. In essence, it becomes a free-for-all for the person who has ownership for that period of time. In case you didn't know, Christian HQ has a notorious history for manager disputes across the years. That is partially why we have the manager demotion rules.

4. Someone can easily take the host situation hostage by not transferring to the next host.

5. Knowing they won’t be in charge for long, some hosts might become complacent. They may not invest the same effort in quality control, content curation, or community management.

6. With frequent rotations, it becomes unclear who is ultimately accountable for the studio’s success. This lack of ownership could negatively impact studio quality

7. If hosts don’t get demoted back to curator, the list of inactive or former hosts could grow indefinitely. Scrolling through hundreds of curators would become cumbersome.

I do agree with you, but here are some of my thoughts on what you said.

1) A rotating host system has been proven to be effective in the case of GWDFI. The position of “host” is not viewed as much as the “owner” as the “supervisor” or the person who for a period of time has more responsibilities. However, it is important to note that this system is successful because of a large number of active managers, which our studio lacks.

2) Again, coordination is much easier when the responsibilities don’t lie on such a small group of people.

3) This is true: there are no checks and balances for the studio. Frankly, at this point, there are not even any! I could (theoretically) remove all of the other managers, and effectively take over the studio, doing irrevocable damage to the studio. Every time a manager is promoted there is a higher chance of risk of a rogue actor. Similarly there is a higher risk of a tyrannical host in the rotating system.

5) I don’t see how some of us could be more complacent lol. But seriously, if the position of host is viewed as a responsibility and not a privilege, then this mindset could be avoided.

6) I don’t think this has negatively impacted the studio’s success in the past, because Blaze has been inactive for years, and managers have come and gone since. In fact it may be dangerous to attribute the entirety of the studio’s success to any single person.

Five and six are in fact somewhat contradictory because, again, a weekly host would be accountable for the week’s success, leading to that person possibly being more helpful/active during his time as a host than his time as a manager.

7) I’m not sure what you mean. After a host changes, the former host returns to being a standard manager, with no additional privileges.