Studio Abusing & The Need To Stop It!

15-MinuteGaming

Nighthawk_248 wrote:

define abusers

set [ abusers] to [people that thing bullying is fun]

Please do not blockspam.

My kumquats and forum signatures ate each other. Luckily, I did not like any of them anyways.
The evil kumquat must have some relation with thanos cat. Evil kumquat is 2.0 and thanos cat is 3.0
April 1st is this Saturday. Details here.

GHeadScratch

15-MinuteGaming wrote:
Nighthawk_248 wrote:
define abusers
set [ abusers] to [people that thing bullying is fun]
Please do not blockspam.

??????????

when I receive [signature v]

say [im outta here, bye!] for (2) secs

HFScratch

GHeadScratch wrote:

when green flag clicked

say [stop bullying!] for (2) secs
set [bullying v] to [0]
define bullying
something that is wrong
when green flag clicked
set [studio abuse v] to [0]
define studio abuse
bullying

[/quote]

True.

god286

How about if the owner could choose the abilities of curators and managers??

Here are some of my followers!

I joined: 5 years, 9 months, 24 days ago (31/03/2018)
I have: 479 followers
In total, I have attained: 1,403 loves, 1,145 favourites, and 33,731 views.
Fun Fact: If my account continued to gain followers at a similar rate to right now, in 14,210 years I would reach the number of followers griffpatch has today! Try to imagine how many followers he would have then!
Thank you everyone!
Script created by god286.

imfh

god286 wrote:
How about if the owner could choose the abilities of curators and managers??

That would actually work pretty well since the abilities could be adapted to the situation. If curators could optionally be given the ability to invite people it sounds like that would fix a lot of problems.

Scratch to Pygame converter: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/600562/

HFScratch

god286 wrote:
How about if the owner could choose the abilities of curators and managers??

No idea about that, I never thought about that…

HFScratch

imfh wrote:
god286 wrote:
How about if the owner could choose the abilities of curators and managers??
That would actually work pretty well since the abilities could be adapted to the situation. If curators could optionally be given the ability to invite people it sounds like that would fix a lot of problems.

But that would bring the manager role to an end.
What if the authority of only inviting people was given to the managers rather then removing people and projects but the owner would have to play much of the role and in that case the question arises “What if the owner is inactive?”

Za-Chary

I like your well thought-out post. Just a forewarning, I only read the OP, not anyone's replies.

To be honest, I do share the idea that you should only promote users who you trust. In a normal everyday studio (not an “add everything” studio), I would not expect a studio to have a large number of managers. This is because of all the responsibilities a manager has. Promoting someone certainly should not be taken lightly. I would only reserve such a position for my good Scratch friends.

You are correct in stating that “add everything” or “invite everyone” studios are against the exact purpose of studios. In fact, they are marked NFE for this reason. Personally, I don't understand why someone would want to make one of these studios. I suppose they can technically count as a collection of projects, but I don't think the number of projects really matters in the long run, much like how project views don't really matter in the long run.

While it is true that “invite everyone as manager” studios are not necessarily supposed to check whether the user is trustworthy, I don't have much sympathy for those who don't think of the consequences of promoting a completely random Scratcher.

Onto your specific suggestions:

Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the studio.

I disagree with this. There are plenty of studios in which the owner is inactive — in fact, maybe they are banned. As a result, removing people, projects, or editing the description would no longer be possible. The manager position is made to have similar responsibilities as the owner precisely for this reason — in case the owner falls inactive. Also, a manager wouldn't have much of a responsibility over a curator if this were the case.

Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.

This could be useful — however, it may be even more helpful if you use “Contact Us” because then you can specify not only what user abused a studio, but also what studio they abused, when they did it, and what specifically they did.

When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.

This could work, but the question of how long the lock stays still remains. Curators could “abuse” a studio by adding 50 projects that they weren't supposed to, and then a team of multiple managers (about 4 in this case) would have to remove all those projects, rather than just one.

Before removing member(s) or project(s) from a studio a message should be sent to the owner informing him/her and asking him/her for approval.

I also disagree with this for the same reason of, what if the owner is inactive? In the case described above where a curator adds 50 unwanted projects to a studio, no one can remove them since the owner no longer uses Scratch (or got banned). Even if the owner is active, this means the owner would get 50 messages asking to remove projects, and also would have to go through the work to approve and/or remove the projects.

I think there currently are ways to combat studio abuse. I also think we could consider introducing some ways to help stop it further. However, a good discussion must be had in order to think about whether this is really needed, or whether the “trusting” idea should always hold. (After all, it's usually the studios that are against the purpose of studios, like “add everything” or “invite everyone” studios, that suffer from abuse.) I don't know that what you specifically suggest here would effectively accomplish those goals.

This is my forum signature! On a forum post, it is okay for Scratchers to advertise in their forum signature. The signature is the stuff that shows up below the horizontal line on the post. It will show up on every post I make.

I was a Scratch Team member from May 10th 2019 to October 29th 2021. I reached 20,000 forum posts on June 24th 2024.

my notebook | scratch team essay | accessibility essay

GHeadScratch

imfh wrote:
god286 wrote:
How about if the owner could choose the abilities of curators and managers??
That would actually work pretty well since the abilities could be adapted to the situation. If curators could optionally be given the ability to invite people it sounds like that would fix a lot of problems.

that would be a great idea. maybe in like, a 4.0 in like a decade, when you invite a person to ‘curate’ instead it will be called becoming a member, and when promoted to manager it will allow them to do everything except for deleting other managers and the ones with the status higher than them.
and then managers can be promoted to co-leader to where they can delete managers, curators, and do everything except for another co-leader or the owner of the studio. if you're only a member, the leader controls what you can do and what you can change. the leader and the co-leaders can promote and demote others to different statuses.

when I receive [signature v]

say [im outta here, bye!] for (2) secs

DexFire

HFScratch wrote:
3). When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.

I wouldn't recommend this, because if there is a limit to the projects you can delete, then that would just move studio abusing into a new style, since off topic projects could be added in bulk, and if even if the person who did such a thing was caught, if there are too little managers, then it could take from days to months before all the projects are removed.

All it takes is for a scratcher to be just a curator in at least 1 studio, and easily in less than an hour, that studio could be filled with thousands upon thousands of unrelated projects for say, a roleplay studio. There might be only be 7 managers there, and if their limit is 15 projects a day, it would take all of the managers, everyday to delete 15 projects (105 in total for this case) which if there are even 1000 projects, would take 10 days, if there were multiple people in the abuse and they racked up 40,000, that would take over a year with 7 active managers. And not every studio has 7 manages, and they aren't always active, and of course you could make an account army and promote them all, then delete them all, but whats the fun in that?

Yes, I am making it seem like something that'll end the world, but it is possible with your rule implemented. Those abusers would just adapt to the change.

HFScratch wrote:
1). Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the
studio.
2). Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.

I totally agree with. I do also believe that there should be a button next to the delete button for managers, so demoting them doesn't remove them from the studio.

Monster Hunter for life! MHW:I, MHR, MHST2, MHFU (PC/Steam/PPSSPP)
Developer of Scratcher Hunter, planning to move to unity soon.

Scratcher Hunter is a top-down fan-game of the Monster Hunter franchise with new monsters and additional weapons coming soon!
NEW Scratcher Hunter Title Update 4 NEW - 2023.12.24
Scratcher Hunter Title Update 3 - 2022.05.25
Scratcher Hunter Title Update 3X01 BETA - Arena (Outdated 04.17 Build) 2023.05.02
Scratcher Hunter Title Update 2 - 2022.09.22
Scratcher Hunter Title Update 2X01 - Sharpthorn Volant Alsumi 2022.11.06
Scratcher Hunter Title Update 1 - 2022.07.26
Scratcher Hunter ARU007 - Original 2019.05.01

TU04 has released. All further updates will be on Godot!

Youtube - Scratcher Hunter and Monster Hunter
ッ

GHeadScratch

DexFire wrote:
HFScratch wrote:
3).
1). Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the
studio.
2). Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.

I totally agree with. I do also believe that there should be a button next to the delete button for managers, so demoting them doesn't remove them from the studio.

yeah. there are a lot of people wanting that, especially during the excitement of 3.0 coming soon in November and December. I really don't know why they didn't add that in the 3.0 update.

Last edited by GHeadScratch (June 19, 2019 19:26:43)

when I receive [signature v]

say [im outta here, bye!] for (2) secs

dhuls

Support

How about the ability to make so that certain managers can't do certain things.

Example: User1234 is a manager at Add All Sports Projects however, he can't Remove Projects/Curators and he can't change the name, thumbnail, and the description, he can only add projects and curators and promote curators however, RockPaperScissors has the ability to do everything (except delete the studio, or remove the owner) in case the owner goes inactive

Last edited by dhuls (June 21, 2019 03:20:35)

Test how good your computer is at doing math. 3DS and Wii U online after shutdown.

HFScratch

Za-Chary wrote:
I like your well thought-out post. Just a forewarning, I only read the OP, not anyone's replies.

To be honest, I do share the idea that you should only promote users who you trust. In a normal everyday studio (not an “add everything” studio), I would not expect a studio to have a large number of managers. This is because of all the responsibilities a manager has. Promoting someone certainly should not be taken lightly. I would only reserve such a position for my good Scratch friends.

You are correct in stating that “add everything” or “invite everyone” studios are against the exact purpose of studios. In fact, they are marked NFE for this reason. Personally, I don't understand why someone would want to make one of these studios. I suppose they can technically count as a collection of projects, but I don't think the number of projects really matters in the long run, much like how project views don't really matter in the long run.

While it is true that “invite everyone as manager” studios are not necessarily supposed to check whether the user is trustworthy, I don't have much sympathy for those who don't think of the consequences of promoting a completely random Scratcher.

Onto your specific suggestions:

Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the studio.
I disagree with this. There are plenty of studios in which the owner is inactive — in fact, maybe they are banned. As a result, removing people, projects, or editing the description would no longer be possible. The manager position is made to have similar responsibilities as the owner precisely for this reason — in case the owner falls inactive. Also, a manager wouldn't have much of a responsibility over a curator if this were the case.

Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.
This could be useful — however, it may be even more helpful if you use “Contact Us” because then you can specify not only what user abused a studio, but also what studio they abused, when they did it, and what specifically they did.

When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.
This could work, but the question of how long the lock stays still remains. Curators could “abuse” a studio by adding 50 projects that they weren't supposed to, and then a team of multiple managers (about 4 in this case) would have to remove all those projects, rather than just one.

Before removing member(s) or project(s) from a studio a message should be sent to the owner informing him/her and asking him/her for approval.
I also disagree with this for the same reason of, what if the owner is inactive? In the case described above where a curator adds 50 unwanted projects to a studio, no one can remove them since the owner no longer uses Scratch (or got banned). Even if the owner is active, this means the owner would get 50 messages asking to remove projects, and also would have to go through the work to approve and/or remove the projects.

I think there currently are ways to combat studio abuse. I also think we could consider introducing some ways to help stop it further. However, a good discussion must be had in order to think about whether this is really needed, or whether the “trusting” idea should always hold. (After all, it's usually the studios that are against the purpose of studios, like “add everything” or “invite everyone” studios, that suffer from abuse.) I don't know that what you specifically suggest here would effectively accomplish those goals.

Thanks for your detailed reply, In one way or another I feel that these suggestion's are requested..You have given convincing replies to all of my suggestions..
Is it easy to choose who to trust on scratch? It is a “Online Community”?
Why did the scratch team make the ‘Manager role’ if we were supposed to only “Trusted” people? I very well agree with your point that studio's such “Add Everything” are purposeless studio but I think it would be much clearer if you could tell something about the time when the website of scratch didn't have this manager role.
You think that studio abuse is preventable with only promoting people who you trust, Quite Fair, Not everyone will follow this idea..
Using the “Contact Us” for reporting such issues, A nice and successful idea.I thought of a layout of introducing “Studio Abuse” as an option to report

For instance if the “Studio Abuse” option is their and we click it:-
-A bar appears where we can enter the targeted studio activity link
-A second bar where we enter the date of the abuse
This will help scratch team keep track.
The basic purpose of this post was to tell people about “Studio Abuse”, Actually majority of scratcher's are unaware of this issue.. So… I think… Promoting trusted people is the solution?

HFScratch

DexFire wrote:
HFScratch wrote:
3). When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.
I wouldn't recommend this, because if there is a limit to the projects you can delete, then that would just move studio abusing into a new style, since off topic projects could be added in bulk, and if even if the person who did such a thing was caught, if there are too little managers, then it could take from days to months before all the projects are removed.

All it takes is for a scratcher to be just a curator in at least 1 studio, and easily in less than an hour, that studio could be filled with thousands upon thousands of unrelated projects for say, a roleplay studio. There might be only be 7 managers there, and if their limit is 15 projects a day, it would take all of the managers, everyday to delete 15 projects (105 in total for this case) which if there are even 1000 projects, would take 10 days, if there were multiple people in the abuse and they racked up 40,000, that would take over a year with 7 active managers. And not every studio has 7 manages, and they aren't always active, and of course you could make an account army and promote them all, then delete them all, but whats the fun in that?

Yes, I am making it seem like something that'll end the world, but it is possible with your rule implemented. Those abusers would just adapt to the change.

HFScratch wrote:
1). Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the
studio.
2). Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.

I totally agree with. I do also believe that there should be a button next to the delete button for managers, so demoting them doesn't remove them from the studio.

You brought a good point forward but I said that their manager abilities are locked for a “Certain amount of time”, Though the amount remains undecided.

HFScratch

dhuls wrote:
Support How about the ability to make so that certain managers can't do certain things.

Example: User1234 is a manager at Add All Sports Projects however, he can't Remove Projects/Curators and he can't change the name, thumbnail, and the description, he can only add projects and curators and promote curators

Maybe, I am not certain about that.

Troyer_Kem

HFScratch wrote:
What features should “Scratch Team” introduce to reduce this issue?

*These are some of the suggestions that I received from some scratcher's.

1). Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the
studio.
2). Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.
3). When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.
4.) Before removing member(s) or project(s) from a studio a message should be sent to the owner informing him/her and asking him/her for approval.

1) I'm not agree with you. Because there can be a mistake in desc/name or one of managers can want add a good chance but then they need to tell the owner studio and this is very boring.
2) This is a good idea. I support this. Clicking “Studio Abuse” button is easier than contact.
3) This is a good idea, too. But need a update. Like, when this happens, owner gets a message about this. He/she gets a button, too. If he/she clicks this button, the deleted projects will be added to studio again.
4) I like this idea. And I'm adding something to this idea, too: When a person wants to delete a curator then owner gets a message about it. This message countains names of the person who will delete and the person who will be deleted. And there will be a message from the person who will delete. This message is about why will he/she delete him/her.

These is my options.

If you're seeing this account, I'm Morimop and the reason that I use this account is:

**I'm too lazy to switch accounts**
**I forget my password**
**I got a forum message while drawing something**

LT241

When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.

This could work, but the question of how long the lock stays still remains. Curators could “abuse” a studio by adding 50 projects that they weren't supposed to, and then a team of multiple managers (about 4 in this case) would have to remove all those projects, rather than just one.

The time lock would depend on how much the owner might have set it to be.

HFScratch

Troyer_Kem wrote:
HFScratch wrote:
What features should “Scratch Team” introduce to reduce this issue?

*These are some of the suggestions that I received from some scratcher's.

1). Managers shall only be allowed to add projects and invite people, the authority to remove people/projects should be only given to the owner of the
studio.
2). Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.
3). When you remove 15+ projects\people from the studio Scratch shall automatically lock your manager authorities for a certain amount of time.
4.) Before removing member(s) or project(s) from a studio a message should be sent to the owner informing him/her and asking him/her for approval.

1) I'm not agree with you. Because there can be a mistake in desc/name or one of managers can want add a good chance but then they need to tell the owner studio and this is very boring.
2) This is a good idea. I support this. Clicking “Studio Abuse” button is easier than contact.
3) This is a good idea, too. But need a update. Like, when this happens, owner gets a message about this. He/she gets a button, too. If he/she clicks this button, the deleted projects will be added to studio again.
4) I like this idea. And I'm adding something to this idea, too: When a person wants to delete a curator then owner gets a message about it. This message countains names of the person who will delete and the person who will be deleted. And there will be a message from the person who will delete. This message is about why will he/she delete him/her.

These is my options.

Thanks for adding up to the suggestions, Though my suggestion's seem to be rejected(sort of).

LT241

Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.

This could be useful — however, it may be even more helpful if you use “Contact Us” because then you can specify not only what user abused a studio, but also what studio they abused, when they did it, and what specifically they did.

Well, what if you have a school account with a school email? You cannot access your emails with certain schools. Therefore, you couldn't “Contact Us” with a school account, which is at least 30% of Scratch.

HFScratch

LT241 wrote:
Studio abuse shall be introduced as a reason to report a user in the report user section.
This could be useful — however, it may be even more helpful if you use “Contact Us” because then you can specify not only what user abused a studio, but also what studio they abused, when they did it, and what specifically they did.

Well, what if you have a school account with a school email? You cannot access your emails with certain schools. Therefore, you couldn't “Contact Us” with a school account, which is at least 30% of Scratch.

Good Point.

Discuss Scratch