Who would it go to? The second curator on the list? Would the owner have to choose a “successor”?

DinoMaster20 wrote:

Who would it go to? The second curator on the list? Would the owner have to choose a “successor”?

It would go to either the second manager or the latest manager to have activity on the studio. They wouldn't have to choose a successor. If they wanted to, they could just promote someone themselves before deleting their account.

jackson49 wrote:

(#42)

DinoMaster20 wrote:

Who would it go to? The second curator on the list? Would the owner have to choose a “successor”?

It would go to either the second manager or the latest manager to have activity on the studio. They wouldn't have to choose a successor. If they wanted to, they could just promote someone themselves before deleting their account.

What if the manager with the latest activity was a troller? That would give the New Host power they shouldn't have, and the studio would suffer.

DinoMaster20 wrote:

What if the manager with the latest activity was a troller? That would give the New Host power they shouldn't have, and the studio would suffer.

Maybe the person would have to be a manager for at least a month? That would reduce the odds of vandalism. But you're right, that's a problem I hadn't considered.

jackson49 wrote:

(#44)

DinoMaster20 wrote:

What if the manager with the latest activity was a troller? That would give the New Host power they shouldn't have, and the studio would suffer.

Maybe the person would have to be a manager for at least a month? That would reduce the odds of vandalism. But you're right, that's a problem I hadn't considered.

Sorry if I make things harder
A manager who's been active for a month?

DinoMaster20 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

(#44)

DinoMaster20 wrote:

What if the manager with the latest activity was a troller? That would give the New Host power they shouldn't have, and the studio would suffer.

Maybe the person would have to be a manager for at least a month? That would reduce the odds of vandalism. But you're right, that's a problem I hadn't considered.

Sorry if I make things harder
A manager who's been active for a month?

What would count as active for at least a month? How many edits would be the threshold?

Also, I can't tell if you're asking me if I'm talking about activity, or if you're suggesting it. I assumed it was the later, but please tell me if I'm wrong.

I think there should be a screen on the deletion page asking you who you want to transfer the host to for all your studios because something like this could always happen:

There are 3 scratchers, Scratcher 1, 2, and 3.

• Scratcher 1: Owner of a very prominent studio, but getting bored of scratch.
  
• Scratcher 2: The first manager added to that studio. Joined so they could vandalize the studio, but the studio update occurred while he was waiting to be accepted.
  
• Scratcher 3: Another manager of that studio, would be a great owner
  

Say Scratcher 1 finally says their goodbyes and deletes their account. No one would own the studio after that, so it would be turned over not to Scratcher 3 but to Scratcher 2. Scratcher 2, finally being able to execute their evil plan, vandalizes/deletes the studio. Oh noes!

Or Scratcher 2 could be a perfectly fine owner but you just think Scratcher 3 would be better for the job.

jackson49 wrote:

(#46)

DinoMaster20 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

(#44)

DinoMaster20 wrote:

What if the manager with the latest activity was a troller? That would give the New Host power they shouldn't have, and the studio would suffer.

Maybe the person would have to be a manager for at least a month? That would reduce the odds of vandalism. But you're right, that's a problem I hadn't considered.

Sorry if I make things harder
A manager who's been active for a month?

What would count as active for at least a month? How many edits would be the threshold?

Also, I can't tell if you're asking me if I'm talking about activity, or if you're suggesting it. I assumed it was the later, but please tell me if I'm wrong.

This is your topic, I'm asking you. You tell me what you think.

To bring up some problems from the other side of the table, though,

What if the owner doesn't want the studio to be in someone else's hands? But had managers to help out, or forgot to demote them.

What if the receiving manager doesn't want it? I wouldn't want, say, “RandomScratcher1's Chat Studio!!” to suddenly be mine, but itd feel wrong to delete it??

What if RandomScratcher1 just straight-up lost their password, but has a new account and runs the studio that way? They couldn't have predicted that, the alt is new and is therefore not the next manager involved.

Removing and reinviting managers to get someone you trust in the first manager slot would be a pain for everyone involved, as well. That may also cause tension and unneccesary drama like “What!! You didnt choose me to be the first manager???!?!” or “Youre going to demote and reinvite me because you dont trust me to take care of the studio? I love this studio and spend all my time towards it!?!?!”

I understand that the studio update made running studios where the curator is gone annoying, however there are some people who just straight up don't want other people running or having power of their studios when they're gone and would rather have the studio continue to be theirs.

If this was toggleable, maybe, but for now its a no, im sorry :[

Support, this can be a great idea, but I don't support the idea of “transfer to the manager that's made the most recent studio edit (adding curators, managers, or projects)” because it may transfer the host to a studio raider. People who joined the earliest are probably the most trustworthy.

-FlickeringCandle- wrote:

To bring up some problems from the other side of the table, though,

What if the owner doesn't want the studio to be in someone else's hands? But had managers to help out, or forgot to demote them.

What if the receiving manager doesn't want it? I wouldn't want, say, “RandomScratcher1's Chat Studio!!” to suddenly be mine, but itd feel wrong to delete it??

What if RandomScratcher1 just straight-up lost their password, but has a new account and runs the studio that way? They couldn't have predicted that, the alt is new and is therefore not the next manager involved.

Removing and reinviting managers to get someone you trust in the first manager slot would be a pain for everyone involved, as well. That may also cause tension and unneccesary drama like “What!! You didnt choose me to be the first manager???!?!” or “Youre going to demote and reinvite me because you dont trust me to take care of the studio? I love this studio and spend all my time towards it!?!?!”

I understand that the studio update made running studios where the curator is gone annoying, however there are some people who just straight up don't want other people running or having power of their studios when they're gone and would rather have the studio continue to be theirs.

If this was toggleable, maybe, but for now its a no, im sorry :[

1. They can contact the Scratch Team to transfer the owner back, but it's not common ig
2. They can transfer the studio to another manager.
3. If a user lost their account password, they can request a password change verification to their email.
4. This depends on what the owner did, and does not fault to the suggestion itself.
5. When “they're gone” the studio cannot “continue” without help from other managers.

I support the OP

-FlickeringCandle- wrote:

If this was toggleable, maybe, but for now its a no, im sorry :[

It would be toggleable

-iviedwall- wrote:

Support, this can be a great idea, but I don't support the idea of “transfer to the manager that's made the most recent studio edit (adding curators, managers, or projects)” because it may transfer the host to a studio raider. People who joined the earliest are probably the most trustworthy.

That's a good point, but the people who joined the earliest are more likely to be inactive

-iviedwall- wrote:

-FlickeringCandle- wrote:

To bring up some problems from the other side of the table, though,

What if the owner doesn't want the studio to be in someone else's hands? But had managers to help out, or forgot to demote them.

What if the receiving manager doesn't want it? I wouldn't want, say, “RandomScratcher1's Chat Studio!!” to suddenly be mine, but itd feel wrong to delete it??

What if RandomScratcher1 just straight-up lost their password, but has a new account and runs the studio that way? They couldn't have predicted that, the alt is new and is therefore not the next manager involved.

Removing and reinviting managers to get someone you trust in the first manager slot would be a pain for everyone involved, as well. That may also cause tension and unneccesary drama like “What!! You didnt choose me to be the first manager???!?!” or “Youre going to demote and reinvite me because you dont trust me to take care of the studio? I love this studio and spend all my time towards it!?!?!”

I understand that the studio update made running studios where the curator is gone annoying, however there are some people who just straight up don't want other people running or having power of their studios when they're gone and would rather have the studio continue to be theirs.

If this was toggleable, maybe, but for now its a no, im sorry :[

1. They can contact the Scratch Team to transfer the owner back, but it's not common ig
2. They can transfer the studio to another manager.
3. If a user lost their account password, they can request a password change verification to their email.
4. This depends on what the owner did, and does not fault to the suggestion itself.
5. When “they're gone” the studio cannot “continue” without help from other managers.

I support the OP

kinda highkey tired atm so cant process all of your responses, however i do not want other people being in charge of my studios if i ever deleted my account. some studios are private to me, so.

jackson49 wrote:

-FlickeringCandle- wrote:

If this was toggleable, maybe, but for now its a no, im sorry :[

It would be toggleable

then yeah, i can support. is the default toggle off or on?

edit: hi sorry this is flickeringcandle's alt haha, like i said im kinda tired sksk and i didnt notice

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

I think there should be a screen on the deletion page asking you who you want to transfer the host to for all your studios because something like this could always happen:

There are 3 scratchers, Scratcher 1, 2, and 3.

• Scratcher 1: Owner of a very prominent studio, but getting bored of scratch.
  
• Scratcher 2: The first manager added to that studio. Joined so they could vandalize the studio, but the studio update occurred while he was waiting to be accepted.
  
• Scratcher 3: Another manager of that studio, would be a great owner
  

Say Scratcher 1 finally says their goodbyes and deletes their account. No one would own the studio after that, so it would be turned over not to Scratcher 3 but to Scratcher 2. Scratcher 2, finally being able to execute their evil plan, vandalizes/deletes the studio. Oh noes!

Or Scratcher 2 could be a perfectly fine owner but you just think Scratcher 3 would be better for the job.

I feel this is the best possible option. I would like to suggest an improvement though.

Maybe there can be a pop-up that says:

You are the host of NUMBER studios. Are you sure you would like to delete your account without transferring ownership to another manager? If not, go back, transfer ownership and then delete your account.
╔══╗ ╔════╗
Yes Go Back
╚══╝ ╚════╝

As mentioned, if there is an inactive manager(who joined first), the studio would collapse, just as it would have done if the owner deleted their account. In such situations, this suggestion would be useless. But with my addition, the owner would be reminded that they own studios that would collapse without a host.

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

I think there should be a screen on the deletion page asking you who you want to transfer the host to for all your studios because something like this could always happen:

There are 3 scratchers, Scratcher 1, 2, and 3.

• Scratcher 1: Owner of a very prominent studio, but getting bored of scratch.
  
• Scratcher 2: The first manager added to that studio. Joined so they could vandalize the studio, but the studio update occurred while he was waiting to be accepted.
  
• Scratcher 3: Another manager of that studio, would be a great owner
  

Say Scratcher 1 finally says their goodbyes and deletes their account. No one would own the studio after that, so it would be turned over not to Scratcher 3 but to Scratcher 2. Scratcher 2, finally being able to execute their evil plan, vandalizes/deletes the studio. Oh noes!

Or Scratcher 2 could be a perfectly fine owner but you just think Scratcher 3 would be better for the job.

This should probably be added too, but what about Scratchers that have already deleted their accounts?

ideapad-320 wrote:

Aadish_1759 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

(#16)

Aadish_1759 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

(#14)

Aadish_1759 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

(#12)

Aadish_1759 wrote:

Support but maybe also add the feature that if the studio host has been inactive for, say, 3 months the same thing happens.

Thanks. I was thinking about that, but what if the user came back to Scratch?

That's why I wrote 3 months, maybe make it 6 months? Anyway just have a time gap which makes certain that the user has lost interest in Scratch. And if they come back they could ask the temp host to make them host again.

That's a good idea. Maybe it could automatically be transferred back if the original host became active again (for example, made at least five studio edits). The new host would have to be aware that the position would likely be temporary.

Yes. But I don't think we can take studio edits as a marker for being active as managers can't edit. Maybe if the user comments at five places or shares 1-2 projects.

Your right about the title and description, but in my mind, edits would also include things like adding projects, curators, managers, and comments

Hmm. But those are things which the host might not necessarily do. Commenting is a sure-fire way

This is a bad idea. It should not be done automatically. It should be done if people request it (like 2 manager or a manager and 5 curators).
But otherwise, Support!

I think it would be a bad idea because a group of managers/curators could take over the studio for other reasons, besides inactivity. Transferring the studio host after a certain time period is a good idea because inactivity in studio hosts is a big problem and there are many studios that are totally inactive because the studio host is inactive and there are no managers.