Rejected Replays: Retroactively Increase Privacy of Uploaded Replays

[tofa]

Hi!

I want to start of by saying I appreciate the great work done to recover the vast majority of replays. However I noticed that a fair amount of the recovered replays, mainly those that were previously unlisted (e.g from smogtours), are now public. This is a bit annoying in a tournament settings, since it's now easier for users to scout previously hidden information using third party tools.

As such, I would like to be able to increase the privacy of my replays retroactively (from public to unlisted/private). This could be added as a button in the viewer of a particular replay if you are part of it.

Stretch goal: For users that have lots of tournament replays, it would be especially useful to be able to perform bulk edits and set a minimum privacy level based on a filter (e.g all of my replays in format X between dates Y and Z should have minimum privacy level "unlisted"). Perhaps a confirmation of affected replays would be good here.

This is probably complex enough as is, but there are a few concerns issue with this suggestion to keep in mind:

1. Replays that were originally private probably shouldn't be able to have it's privacy level decreased to unlisted/public. As such, it is a "one-way ticket". This is especially important for bulk edits.
2. Some replays are "forced to be public" for various reasons (e.g room tours, ladder tours). So those probably shouldn't be hideable retroactively, but I'm not sure if there's a way to detect whether a replay was forced to be public today.
3. Who's to say the other replay participant(s) wants to make the replay private? One could argue that the user that prefers privacy should be prioritized, but it's worth keeping in mind nonetheless.

So I definitely understand if this is rejected due to infeasibility/risk vs reward. In any case, I thought I'd throw this suggestion out there in case some part of it could perhaps be implemented or lead to a better idea :)

Thanks for considering the request!

 

[Hecate]

Currently we don't allow this because A) tours malfeasance, B) various other forced things that are quite difficult to detect given the significant amount of edge-cases that exist, and C) because the participants might disagree on what privacy they want it to have.
I'm going to be rejecting this for now - it's just a lot of extra work and concerns for not a huge amount of gain.