dave-alt-4 wrote:

ScolderCreations wrote:

Better system: “First come, first served.” The first person to accept a studio invite to become the host, will be the host, and anyone else who tries to click the link will not be acceptedeth. Perhaps there should be a limit on how many people thou can attempteth to transfer ownershipe to… And perhaps there will be a timeout, if the user does not respond?

could lead to something like

original host : hi A , I'll make you host
A ; ok
original host :*transfers A*
*A was on vacation*
*2 days later*
original host : maybe he doesn't want to be host *transfer B to host*
B :immediately accepts
*like almost immediately after that*
A : hey , original host , you promised to give me host I'm gonna report u for tricking the community

You can report those comments, also, I highly doubt this scenario would actually occur.

“tricking the community” does not mean “tricking a single person”. Either way, if someone goes on vacation immediately after they get invited to host a studio, that just seems unlucky.

Sorry l am new to this l just try to make the thingy in the mail box

Pixalperfect wrote:

anhuysam wrote:

()

no block spam

Sorry l am new to this l just try to make the thingy in the mail box

AlfabetonsOfficial wrote:

-snip-
You can report those comments, also, I highly doubt this scenario would actually occur.

most people don't even know that its against cg (not everyone knows about the name and shame rule)

ScolderCreations wrote:

“tricking the community” does not mean “tricking a single person”. Either way, if someone goes on vacation immediately after they get invited to host a studio, that just seems unlucky.

“tricking the community” means tricking somebody right? (or A could just say like "he posted in my profile in public so its a community cuz some people check out my profile) except rick roll

first come first serve is risky tbh (although its chances are low )

sharkode wrote:

I agree with this, I think the owner is responsible if the studio has something rude in there (I think, not 100% sure), so someone can just create a studio, invite people in there, change the description to something horrible, and then give the studio to a poor manager before reporting it.

Also, I think the same thing should go for promoting someone

It would say that you where the original person in the change log and the scratch team would see that

Za-Chary wrote:

What would happen if the following sequence of steps occur?

• I try to make you the host of my studio.
  
  
• You don't want to be the host, so you don't accept the request.
  
  
• I find someone else to be the host of my studio, and they accept the request.
  
  
• Now you suddenly decide to accept the request, effectively taking ownership from the user who wanted to be the host.
  

Should there be a system that prevents this from happening?

If the host decided to make another person the host while there is still a pending request they sent before to another person, the message will just get deleted on the previous person.

sharkode wrote:

Also, I think the same thing should go for promoting someone

I have always found it strange that you don't have to confirm the manager role unlike the curator role. Once a person who doesn't want to be a manager becomes one, it is hard to demote them without removing them and re-inviting them.

Za-Chary wrote:

What would happen if the following sequence of steps occur?

• I try to make you the host of my studio.
  
  
• You don't want to be the host, so you don't accept the request.
  
  
• I find someone else to be the host of my studio, and they accept the request.
  
  
• Now you suddenly decide to accept the request, effectively taking ownership from the user who wanted to be the host.
  

Should there be a system that prevents this from happening?

Solution: the host cannot send another host invitation message to someone else until the other person clicks a “decline” button, which sends a message to the host. This system would time out after a certain period of time has elapsed (two weeks?), in case the other person is inactive and cannot decline the promotion. After that happens, the host receives a message saying that the other person didn't click accept or decline. The message that was sent to the other person disappears. The host is free to promote anyone again, including the same person as before. This would reduce any miscommunications that can be interpreted as “tricking the community”.

Of course, if anyone asks to be the host and suddenly becomes inactive because of a planned vacation, resulting in the host giving someone else the host status, they could be mad for not being promoted. A fairly inactive user shouldn't take on the role of host in a popular studio to begin with. It is the responsibility of the host to decide who is promoted, but it isn't their problem if anyone gets angry for not being promoted because of inactivity. The person who was the host before should probably explain to the person why they didn't promote them to host in a friendly matter.