A manager job is to manage the studio. Not just to invite, promote, and delete curators. But apparently the studio update doesn’t think so. In my opinion if the ST isn’t going to change anything back, maybe they could add one more thing. Co-Owners would have all the abilities as the owner except for deleting the studio. The Co-Owners would still contribute to the manager limit, because even I see a bit of sense in that. Any Owner or a Co-Owner would be able to promote a manager to a Co-Owner, and any Co-Owner could be turned back into a manager. If the owner of the studio was going to leave scratch, then they could promote a Co-Owner into the Owner, who has all the abilities as a Co-Owner, can delete the studio (hopefully they don’t do it) and appear at the top of the manager list as the Owner.
Sometimes you don’t know if you can trust some managers with the description but need them for adding people, and stuff like that. This would help that and also help the manager problem with the new update.

Yeah. Maybe the owner could have managers and then make a some of the managers co-owners which have the same rights as owners apart that they can’t delete the studio.

Isauree wrote:

Yeah. Maybe the owner could have managers and then make a some of the managers co-owners which have the same rights as owners apart that they can’t delete the studio.

Exactly what I was saying! Because you don’t know if you can always trust a manager but need them to invite people, and then the Co-Owners would be the ones that are trusted a lot.

Maybe there could be an options menu next to managers and you could give 4 managers or so “full control”, allowing them to edit the studio’s details and do everything expect removing the creator or deleting the studio.

D-ScratchNinja wrote:

Maybe there could be an options menu next to managers and you could give 4 managers or so “full control”, allowing them to edit the studio’s details and do everything expect removing the creator or deleting the studio.

Yes exactly!

I made a topic with some of this type of posts compiled and I quoted your post. here it is if you want to check it out.

Definite support. This is quite similar to something I suggested and I definitely agree. As an alternative, maybe the studio owner could have a toggle for whether managers could edit the desc? (In case the Scratch Team thinks this is too confusing for new users, which they seem to think about everything)

Fun_Cupcake_i81 wrote:

Definite support. This is quite similar to something I suggested and I definitely agree. As an alternative, maybe the studio owner could have a toggle for whether managers could edit the desc? (In case the Scratch Team thinks this is too confusing for new users, which they seem to think about everything)

Yes, I think that is a better idea.

Full Support. If the creator of the studio is inactive/left Scratch, someone would have to be able run the studio and keep it updated.

Almost full support. I think that “managers” should be what they used to be to prevent confusion, and there should be a lower role, maybe called “helpers,” that only can invite and remove curators and remove projects.

FireySky wrote:

A manager job is to manage the studio. Not just to invite, promote, and delete curators. But apparently the studio update doesn’t think so. In my opinion if the ST isn’t going to change anything back, maybe they could add one more thing. Co-Owners would have all the abilities as the owner except for deleting the studio. The Co-Owners would still contribute to the manager limit, because even I see a bit of sense in that. Any Owner or a Co-Owner would be able to promote a manager to a Co-Owner, and any Co-Owner could be turned back into a manager. If the owner of the studio was going to leave scratch, then they could promote a Co-Owner into the Owner, who has all the abilities as a Co-Owner, can delete the studio (hopefully they don’t do it) and appear at the top of the manager list as the Owner.
Sometimes you don’t know if you can trust some managers with the description but need them for adding people, and stuff like that. This would help that and also help the manager problem with the new update.

I was just about to make a topic about this lol. I totally agree.

FireySky wrote:

Isauree wrote:

Yeah. Maybe the owner could have managers and then make a some of the managers co-owners which have the same rights as owners apart that they can’t delete the studio.

Exactly what I was saying! Because you don’t know if you can always trust a manager but need them to invite people, and then the Co-Owners would be the ones that are trusted a lot.

Yepp

Support, but what's the difference between managers and curators now?

Maybe:
Owner (Person who made the studio)
Managers (Basically owners but can’t delete the studio)
Helpers (Basically the current managers)
Curators (Basically what a curator has always been)

OR

Owner (Person who made the studio)
Co-owners (Basically owners but can’t delete the studio)
Managers (Basically the current managers)
Curators (Basically what a curator has always been)

Either way, there could not be a limit on Helpers / Managersbut a limit on Managers / Co-owners

It's a great suggestion, so definitely won't be implemented.

colinmacc wrote:

It's a great suggestion, so definitely won't be implemented.

Lol, you are stating the BITTER TRUTH

QuantumCodes wrote:

colinmacc wrote:

It's a great suggestion, so definitely won't be implemented.

Lol, you are stating the BITTER TRUTH

True lol. (o_o)

Managers should also be renamed to invites as that is what they are

H_Dur wrote:

Managers should also be renamed to invites as that is what they are

Maybe like a I dunno. I feel it’s too sad to do that.

-MyNewAccount- wrote:

I made a topic with some of this type of posts compiled and I quoted your post. here it is if you want to check it out.

Thank you, and it was a great idea to create a post of a lot of studio posts combined