So, I had an idea for studios. When someone deletes their account, and they are the host, they remain the host. But, what if there was either,
A). A co-host, or
B). When your account is deleted, it gives the host status to the next manager in line, OR, if your the only manager, it gives it to the next Curator in line.
This way, there is a lot less dead studios, and people will still be able to fully interact with the studio, even after the host's account is deleted. This would be especially useful for roleplays and contests.
Cons: it could transfer the host status to someone who would abuse that status.

Bump

Bump

BuMp

I think the host should be able to choose who gets the host status, but your idea of the next manager/curator should be used if the host didn't set who would get the host status.

meepeygamer567 wrote:

I think the host should be able to choose who gets the host status, but your idea of the next manager/curator should be used if the host didn't set who would get the host status.

Yes, that makes sense.
The only difficulty I can see with that is… What if the next in line is banned? (I may be wrong, but don't people stay in studios, even if they are banned?)

BuMp

Bump

It's kind of far-fetched, but what if the “next in line” manager keeps reporting the owner so his account is deleted and he reigns over some random studio? Like some kind of a Scratch revolution.

Semi-support.

PhoenixAndStuf wrote:

It's kind of far-fetched, but what if the “next in line” manager keeps reporting the owner so his account is deleted and he reigns over some random studio? Like some kind of a Scratch revolution.

Semi-support.

Hmm… That is true. Wouldn't the ST be able to see this reporting for no reason however? How about, it doesn't happen until the account is truly deleted/banned, to prevent that from happening?

BUMP-bump-bump-bump-bump

Maybe when a user gets banned, next to the perm banned message it has a link that says, Who would you like to be host of , but only with perm bans

I agree. I know a handful of studios where the host deleted their accounts, got banned, and stuff like that.

I agree

PhoenixAndStuf wrote:

It's kind of far-fetched, but what if the “next in line” manager keeps reporting the owner so his account is deleted and he reigns over some random studio? Like some kind of a Scratch revolution.

Semi-support.

I guess.

But the host could choose who to hand host to in the end.

b u m p
u u
m m
p u m b

zomboss1_1 wrote:

b u m p
u u
m m
p u m b

x2

Support but could there be a way to toggle it?

I made a mockup

Basically, for every studio you are host of after pressing “Yes, next step” in the deletion menu, you would select a manager of the studio and pass on studio host to them, or you could delete the studio entirely.
If there are no managers the studio gets deleted automatically by the way

mockup:

I was on this earlier today (and thought it was interesting) but I thought just to give people studio host privileges because it changes per 24 hours nowadays…with the managers and everything, but I'm not sure whether deleting the entire studio, which most scratchers can anyway on their own- would be something to consider when doing it given the amount of curators.

semi-support

A different idea: The host can choose who gets the status if their account get deleted or banned. So it isn't just whoever happened to be next in line, and the host could change it at any time. Thoughts?

Bumping because I like this idea-

bjagain wrote:

A different idea: The host can choose who gets the status if their account get deleted or banned. So it isn't just whoever happened to be next in line, and the host could change it at any time. Thoughts?

Uh… what if they don't have any managers tho?