In the list of rejected suggestions, it says:

Scratch Team wrote:

15. Add a rank above Scratcher
There are three ranks: New Scratcher, Scratcher, and Scratch Team. The only reason the New Scratcher rank exists is to prevent spam, and since it only takes two weeks to become a Scratcher, bullying and separation is rather minimal. Similarly, the Scratch Team rank exists so users know who is on the Scratch Team; generally, Scratch Team members do not brag about the Scratch Team rank. In contrast, there may be division in the community between Scratchers and those with a higher rank, which could also lead to bragging and bullying."

My suggestion is to add a new rank (gasp!) - but not for something above Scratcher, but rather for inactive scratchers. Each of the ranks exist to fulfill some purpose; for New Scratcher it is to prevent spam. For Scratch team it is to identify which people are part of the scratch team i.e. who is in charge.

This new rank, inactive scratcher, would serve certain purposes, of which here are some I could list off the top of my head:
1. It would quickly let people know if the scratcher is likely to reply to a request or comment about a project, profile page, or studio. Useful because comments are frequently used to communicate information.
2. There could be a way to give curators temporary control over a studio if a scratcher has been inactive for a long period of time (there are several ways this could be executed). In fact, I know of at least one studio that has this exact problem.
3. When someone comes back to scratch after a long period of time, they might not be up-to-date on (or just not remember) some community guidelines or have forgotten some aspects to coding. It would be in the interest of both the Scratch team and the scratcher to have a way to “bring someone up to speed.”

What counts as “activity” in my opinion could be any of the following - Loving, Favoriting, or editing any project, commenting, or updating the account information. Exactly how long it takes until they become an “inactive scratcher” could be up for debate. There could also be some kind of manual switch or button that a scratcher could press to say that they will be inactive for a period of time.

Support, although I have a really small suggestion for this. Maybe the word “Inactive” could be red? In my opinion it would look better, and jump out more. It's not really useful, though.

Isn't it already obvious to spot whether someone is inactive or not though? I mean, you can tell that one is inactive if they haven't done anything in like, the past 2 months

NilsTheBest wrote:

Isn't it already obvious to spot whether someone is inactive or not though? I mean, you can tell that one is inactive if they haven't done anything in like, the past 2 months

Also, you can not do anything that shows up in the activity section on your profile, but still be really active. One time, I was only active on the forums.

Dragonlord767 wrote:

NilsTheBest wrote:

Isn't it already obvious to spot whether someone is inactive or not though? I mean, you can tell that one is inactive if they haven't done anything in like, the past 2 months

Also, you can not do anything that shows up in the activity section on your profile, but still be really active. One time, I was only active on the forums.

For both of those - It would be more than just stuff that shows up on the activity profile. Any kind of notice that you are still using scratch (posting on forums, reading messages, etc.) would count. NilsTheBest, what if they are reading comments and editing in the editor, but just aren't loving and favoriting.

coderoni wrote:

Dragonlord767 wrote:

NilsTheBest wrote:

Isn't it already obvious to spot whether someone is inactive or not though? I mean, you can tell that one is inactive if they haven't done anything in like, the past 2 months

Also, you can not do anything that shows up in the activity section on your profile, but still be really active. One time, I was only active on the forums.

For both of those - It would be more than just stuff that shows up on the activity profile. Any kind of notice that you are still using scratch (posting on forums, reading messages, etc.) would count. NilsTheBest, what if they are reading comments and editing in the editor, but just aren't loving and favoriting.

Just wanted to point out it's probably easier to code if activity is determined on website visits/logins.

I'm more concerned about the ruckus that could be caused by having an “inactivity” rank, such as people who might not want that type of indication on their page, or the gossip and website drama that can result from discussion of inactive accounts. I think “on hiatus” would be better wording, and it would be better not to consider it a ranking status as proposed.

That wouldn't need to be a rank.

Support for curators having manager permissions when there are no managers, but on return, the managers should be able to see all changes, and revert some possibly.

cheddargirl wrote:

coderoni wrote:

Dragonlord767 wrote:

NilsTheBest wrote:

Isn't it already obvious to spot whether someone is inactive or not though? I mean, you can tell that one is inactive if they haven't done anything in like, the past 2 months

Also, you can not do anything that shows up in the activity section on your profile, but still be really active. One time, I was only active on the forums.

For both of those - It would be more than just stuff that shows up on the activity profile. Any kind of notice that you are still using scratch (posting on forums, reading messages, etc.) would count. NilsTheBest, what if they are reading comments and editing in the editor, but just aren't loving and favoriting.

Just wanted to point out it's probably easier to code if activity is determined on website visits/logins.

I'm more concerned about the ruckus that could be caused by having an “inactivity” rank, such as people who might not want that type of indication on their page, or the gossip and website drama that can result from discussion of inactive accounts. I think “on hiatus” would be better wording, and it would be better not to consider it a ranking status as proposed.

But if the user's inactive because they're done with Scratch altogether it wouldn't really make sense

Support! I think this is a good idea.

Support! Useful for me so I can see if games I like are made by scratchers that are still active

I would put it the way @cheddargirl puts it

Support for an “on hiatus” descriptor for people that haven't logged in for a while. There should be an option to turn this off for your profile, and an option to log in without removing the hiatus. Perhaps you could also choose to specify that you're on hiatus immediately.

Wouldn't putting a comment on your profile explaining you're on hiatus, and then closing comments, also serve the same purpose?

Za-Chary wrote:

Wouldn't putting a comment on your profile explaining you're on hiatus, and then closing comments, also serve the same purpose?

It would, but people wouldn't see it, for example, on the forums.

Flipped_ wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Wouldn't putting a comment on your profile explaining you're on hiatus, and then closing comments, also serve the same purpose?

It would, but people wouldn't see it, for example, on the forums.

You're right — fair enough.

Flipped_ wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Wouldn't putting a comment on your profile explaining you're on hiatus, and then closing comments, also serve the same purpose?

It would, but people wouldn't see it, for example, on the forums.

There is this thing called a “signature.”

sti_scratch wrote:

There is this thing called a “signature.”

Not everybody updates their signature often, or their profile page for that matter. This rank/status would automatically show whether somebody is inactive or not. In my opinion, the automatic-ness is the best part of this suggestion.

coderoni wrote:

In the list of rejected suggestions, it says:

Scratch Team wrote:

15. Add a rank above Scratcher
There are three ranks: New Scratcher, Scratcher, and Scratch Team. The only reason the New Scratcher rank exists is to prevent spam, and since it only takes two weeks to become a Scratcher, bullying and separation is rather minimal. Similarly, the Scratch Team rank exists so users know who is on the Scratch Team; generally, Scratch Team members do not brag about the Scratch Team rank. In contrast, there may be division in the community between Scratchers and those with a higher rank, which could also lead to bragging and bullying."

My suggestion is to add a new rank (gasp!) - but not for something above Scratcher, but rather for inactive scratchers. Each of the ranks exist to fulfill some purpose; for New Scratcher it is to prevent spam. For Scratch team it is to identify which people are part of the scratch team i.e. who is in charge.

This new rank, inactive scratcher, would serve certain purposes, of which here are some I could list off the top of my head:
1. It would quickly let people know if the scratcher is likely to reply to a request or comment about a project, profile page, or studio. Useful because comments are frequently used to communicate information.
2. There could be a way to give curators temporary control over a studio if a scratcher has been inactive for a long period of time (there are several ways this could be executed). In fact, I know of at least one studio that has this exact problem.
3. When someone comes back to scratch after a long period of time, they might not be up-to-date on (or just not remember) some community guidelines or have forgotten some aspects to coding. It would be in the interest of both the Scratch team and the scratcher to have a way to “bring someone up to speed.”

What counts as “activity” in my opinion could be any of the following - Loving, Favoriting, or editing any project, commenting, or updating the account information. Exactly how long it takes until they become an “inactive scratcher” could be up for debate. There could also be some kind of manual switch or button that a scratcher could press to say that they will be inactive for a period of time.

No Support, what would be the threshold amount of time to determine a person as inactive? Besides, you can already just look at their activity log. The only place where I could see this being potentially useful is for getting rid of namesniped accounts.

coldeaux wrote:

Besides, you can already just look at their activity log.

Like I said, you can't look at somebody's activity log on the forums. Sure, you can visit their profile and look at their activity log, but not many people do that at first glance.

yesh i gives support