The way it is now, if an owner doesn’t want to be in a studio anymore, they can manually transfer ownership to another scratcher. However, this doesn’t solve the problem of the owner getting banned. Most often, these are unexpected and too fast to transfer ownership. So I propose a suggestion: Automatic owner transferring.

The way this would work is as follows: if the owner of a studio gets banned (would be detected with a new tag that is invisible to everybody) or their account gets deleted, the ownership automatically transfers to the first manager in the list. And, for the banning part, when the user comes back, they can “request ownership” of the studio. (Idk if that’s already implemented)

Pros:
Would keep studios active after a user gets banned

Cons:
Would require a lot more code than we already have

Pianostar4 wrote:

gets banned (would be detected with a new tag that is invisible to everybody)

Just so you know, this is NOT rejected! The rejected suggestion is to show when users are banned, this would be specifically in the code and invisible unless you go into the code.

Pianostar4 wrote:

Pianostar4 wrote:

gets banned (would be detected with a new tag that is invisible to everybody)

Just so you know, this is NOT rejected! The rejected suggestion is to show when users are banned, this would be specifically in the code and invisible unless you go into the code.

No I think there should be security behind the api endpoint or script kiddos on nonoword is gonna script a ban indicator

OdysseyHD wrote:

Pianostar4 wrote:

Pianostar4 wrote:

gets banned (would be detected with a new tag that is invisible to everybody)

Just so you know, this is NOT rejected! The rejected suggestion is to show when users are banned, this would be specifically in the code and invisible unless you go into the code.

No I think there should be security behind the api endpoint or script kiddos on nonoword is gonna script a ban indicator

Literally, Scratch is not open source.

Don't you think this would reveal if someone is banned, even if it doesn't explicitly say that? Let's suppose that @Scratcher1 is an active Scratcher who owns an extremely popular fan club studio, which others know that @Scratcher1 would never transfer ownership (since @Scratcher1 owns their own fan club studio). If one day, ownership is transferred, and at the same time @Scratcher1 ceases to be active, despite insistence that ownership would never be transferred, I would think that it would be a good guess that @Scratcher1 was banned.

Also, is the Scratch Team not able to transfer studio ownership upon request by using Contact Us? I would think that's a good idea precisely for when this situation comes up.

Za-Chary wrote:

Also, is the Scratch Team not able to transfer studio ownership upon request by using Contact Us? I would think that's a good idea precisely for when this situation comes up.

After having gone through this process, yes I can confirm the Scratch Team WILL transfer ownership on request, but they do like to see some evidence that the other managers/curators support the transfer of ownership, so remember to ask them first in the comments!

Za-Chary wrote:

Don't you think this would reveal if someone is banned, even if it doesn't explicitly say that? Let's suppose that @Scratcher1 is an active Scratcher who owns an extremely popular fan club studio, which others know that @Scratcher1 would never transfer ownership (since @Scratcher1 owns their own fan club studio). If one day, ownership is transferred, and at the same time @Scratcher1 ceases to be active, despite insistence that ownership would never be transferred, I would think that it would be a good guess that @Scratcher1 was banned.

I didn’t actually think about that. I can’t really find any plausible ways to get around that, so I guess this suggestion no is a bust? Reporting to be closed.

Closed by request.