About the QCs anonymity

[hasteroth]

It's so easy to just sign it,.

Exactly. People can impersonate others

How'd you liek it if something impersonated you and started ruining your reputation or somethign liek that?

[Vivaldi]

It's so easy to just sign it,.

Exactly. People can impersonate others

How'd you liek it if something impersonated you and started ruining your reputation or somethign liek that?

I doubt it's that much of a widespread problem unless you've built up a reputation for being a huge tool or something. But I do see how that could cause problems.

[hasteroth]

It's so easy to just sign it,.

Exactly. People can impersonate others

How'd you liek it if something impersonated you and started ruining your reputation or somethign liek that?

I doubt it's that much of a widespread problem unless you've built up a reputation for being a huge tool or something. But I do see how that could cause problems.

Like me?

[BasharOfTheAges]

If there's a problem mods could always correct it with ban hammers.

[The Origonal Head Hunter]

If there's a problem mods could always correct it with ban hammers.

Because those have gotten so much use over the years.

[CrackTheSky]

It's so easy to just sign it,.

Exactly. People can impersonate others

How'd you liek it if something impersonated you and started ruining your reputation or somethign liek that?

I know this topic is two weeks old, but who in the fuck would take any QC seriously enough to think poorly of another member because of something they may have said through a QC?

1) If someone signs their own name while leaving a bunch of nasty QCs then clearly they don't care about their "reputation" to begin with (insofar as they may believe such QCs can ruin it).

2) If someone is signing someone else's name and leaving a bunch of nasty QCs, assuming this actually becomes a problem and the person in question is being harassed for supposedly leaving these QCs, it's only a matter of contacting an administrator to prove that they didn't indeed leave such comments (as I believe certain admins/coders here have the ability to check who leaves any QC).

I've never, ever heard of such a thing happening. When someone leaves an insulting/negative quick comment and signs a name, because QCs are anonymous to begin with the one who receives the comment should automatically be skeptical that the name goes with the person who actually left the comment. And generally in cases like that, the quick comment shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.

It's not worth coding just because there could possibly be some ridiculous scenario where one person tries to ruin another person's reputation through anonymous quick comments which in general aren't taken seriously enough for this to be an issue.

[dazza1008]

It's so easy to just sign it, I see much point in coding something in.

A feature that lets you reply to someone, while still keeping them anonymous, would be very nice though.

Disagree - username can be faked.

Agree with second point.


--Vivaldi

[Cenit]

I was wondering, would it be possible to put a check to allow a user to let know who he/she is?
I oftentimes find QCs with the nickname of who wrote it reported. Clearly I think it's right to allow people to leave QCs anonymously, but if someone wants to let know who they are when they comment, well, they should be allowed.

I totally want this!

[Douggie]

A feature that lets you reply to someone, while still keeping them anonymous, would be very nice though.

Yeah, that is what I was thinking too! Sometimes someone just writes such a valuable QC you just wanna say "thanks!"