If a user that hosts a studio deletes their account, I think that the first manager added should automatically become the host. It could also transfer to the manager that's made the most recent studio edit (adding curators, managers, or projects). This could also be done with banned accounts, although it might make it easier for other users to figure out they were banned. For users that are inactive for more than six months, a temporary host could also be promoted, with ownership being transferred back automatically if the user requests it, although it could cause some drama.

This would just be a fail-safe for studio owners who forget to promote another user before deleting their account. If users don't want to leave it up to chance, they can promote a user themselves. For users that don't want a new host (as Scratchfangs pointed out), this could be turned off, although the setting should (in my opinion) be on by default.

I'm not a fan of the host system in general, but I think that this would solve a small amount of the problems it creates. If you see any problems with this idea, please point them out.

support. with this, people wouldn't have to make new studios all because the host isnt active/got banned/left scratch/deleted their account

I like the idea

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

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?

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.

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. It might cause some drama though.

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.

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.

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

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

Aadish_1759 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

You're 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

That's true. Maybe it should just be activity on Scratch.

jackson49 wrote:

(#19)

Aadish_1759 wrote:

jackson49 wrote:

You're 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

That's true. Maybe it should just be activity on Scratch.

Yeah

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.

I think, if there was to be a time limit, it would have to be much higher. I personally have left scratch quite a few times, and possibly for the duration of a few months. This wouldn’t be fair to the creator of the studio to come back after a long break and see that all of their studios have been taken over.

However, I support if the creator deletes their account.

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!

ideapad-320 wrote:

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!

Yeah, I now agree with you that automatic transferring is a bad idea for inactivity, although an impeachment-like process might also cause some drama. I think that automatic transferring would work best for deleted accounts.

I delete my account because I don't want to continue Scratching, but I want my studio to go on.

Then the next owner tears it all down. I think you get my point.

It would be better if the studio owner could choose who it goes to, instead of immediately going to the first/second manager.

qloakonscratch wrote:

I delete my account because I don't want to continue Scratching, but I want my studio to go on.

Then the next owner tears it all down. I think you get my point.

It would be better if the studio owner could choose who it goes to, instead of immediately going to the first/second manager.

Ok so this is getting complicated maybe we should just have a basic feature at first and then the ST could slowly add updates

What if there are no managers in the studio? What if the manager choosen is inactive? What would happen then?

-TWILIGHTMISTY- wrote:

What if there are no managers in the studio?

In that case, I'd suggest either for nothing to happen, or for the most active curator to be promoted (for obvious reasons, that would be dangerous)

-TWILIGHTMISTY- wrote:

What if the manager choosen is inactive? What would happen then?

jackson49 wrote:

It could also transfer to the manager that's made the most recent studio edit (adding curators, managers, or projects)

qloakonscratch wrote:

I delete my account because I don't want to continue Scratching, but I want my studio to go on.

Then the next owner tears it all down. I think you get my point.

It would be better if the studio owner could choose who it goes to, instead of immediately going to the first/second manager.

If you care enough about your studio, you could transfer ownership to a responsible manager yourself before deleting your account. This would just be a fail-safe for those who don't.