# Set anonymous mode trust level

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/set-anonymous-mode-trust-level/104895>\
**Category:** Support\
**Tags:** anonymous-mode\
**Created:** [December 22, 2018, 11:44am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/set-anonymous-mode-trust-level/104895 "2018-12-22T11:44:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/codinghorror/32/110067_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)\
**Post date:** [December 26, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/set-anonymous-mode-trust-level/104895/11 "2018-12-26T00:13:56Z")

</div>

Yes, I’m sure I don’t care about either of those scenarios, as I think they will be so rare in practice as to not matter. I think “good enough” is a quick simple code change to have the newly created anon user grab the _current_ trust level of the user it is spawning from. Probably one line of code?

We could always improve the behavior later if people start complaining about it, but I doubt that will happen due to the rarity of this feature being used at all.

I like to scale the engineering effort to the rarity of the problem, personally, and I am a big fan of “good enough for now” solutions, provided they aren’t hacky, and I don’t think this would be.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/set-anonymous-mode-trust-level/104895)._