Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ability To Block PMs

Options
  • 02-06-2010 4:48am
    #1
    Xavi6
    Registered Users Posts: 40,861 ✭✭✭✭


    There is an option on boards for folk to block PMs if they don't wish to receive them. It's a great idea for some and I'm sure they find it beneficial.

    However I feel that these people should also not have the ability to send PMs. There are examples of users PMing people with their opinions then, because they don't allow PMs, they don't have to deal with the response. It is very annoying when you are sent something ludicrous (which even contains a question!) yet can't respond.

    Is this abuse of the system on the part of the sender or just part and parcel of the function?

    Basically I'm suggesting an all or nothing system with regard to PMs.
    Post edited by Shield on


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Don't really agree, you have the right to turn them off if you don't want PM's. Just like they do. I think it's just a bit odd to say, oh well we will take sending away from you if you don't want to be contactable via pm. They can be used for totally different purposes. I think it is just a niggle that could annoy somebody rather than something that should be implemented. You say yourself, it's a great idea for some and I'm sure they find it beneficial, I can't say the same about taking sending from them. Ok you can't reply to their question, it's just their loss. Also what about something whereby I want to not be contactable via PM and this was put into place, I couldn't send moderating related PMs to a user, perhaps a warning or an explanation.


  • Options
    #3
    Xavi6
    Registered Users Posts: 40,861 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    Sorry to just pick one sentence out Tar but
    Ok you can't reply to their question, it's just their loss.

    It's not their loss though because they can say what they like and not have to deal with the response. It's harbouring one upmanship.

    I understand your points but don't agree, simply because the right of reply should be there. If you're bold enough to send a PM then you should have to deal with the response.

    Being a moderator makes no difference. If you offer an explanation and the user doesn't agree where do they go? Makes more work for Help Desk (where btw the first response anyway will be "Did you PM the mod in question?").

    Like or not it's a discussion forum overall and one sided PMing is silly.


  • Options
    #4
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    If they are breaking any rule you can report it, if they are harbouring oneupmanship, or harassing somebody you can say it. That is a separate issue, abusing an option. In the thousands of PMs I have sent here not one person has had their PMs turned off, I am surprised this is an issue. I don't feel the right to reply should be there, I feel that you and others might want it but I'm not sure why it should be a right. Users can also send you a PM and not bother reading the reply, I know some of mine have not been read. It sounds like the issue is you not wanting people badgering you in this manner which I think is a better user case by case affair rather than a blanket ban on PMs if you don't want to receive them. You can say there are good reasons for blocking the receiving of PMs but I can't see good reasons to block the sending of them, apart from something hat is breaking site rules and should be dealt with anyway, separately.

    I don't know what the rules are for moderators but don't think they should be able to turn them off as part and parcel with the role they have undertaken. I just gave ( a bad) example of how somebody might possibly want to send something but not receive something. If people are not happy with a moderator decision or explanation then they should take the next step on the rung, but I don't feel mods should be able to stop them anyway. Perhaps if I just said a user sending an explanation via pm of a question asked by another user or something along those lines, they are helping out, I don't see why they should have to receive a PM too.


  • Options
    #5
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    Xavi6 wrote: »
    Basically I'm suggesting an all or nothing system with regard to PMs.

    To be honest, I don't think it is workable.

    I can understand your frustrations, and I believe I know what this is in relation to, but I don't know if it really makes sense.


  • Options
    #6
    Xavi6
    Registered Users Posts: 40,861 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    To be honest, I don't think it is workable.

    I can understand your frustrations, and I believe I know what this is in relation to, but I don't know if it really makes sense.

    Ok if not an all or nothing system, how about somehing along the lines of if you send a PM then you are open to one back.

    That way you still don't get the unsolicited PMs you want to avoid but people can respond to you if you send one out.

    Basically having it so that the reply function works.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Xavi6 wrote: »
    There is an option on boards for folk to block PMs if they don't wish to receive them. It's a great idea for some and I'm sure they find it beneficial.

    However I feel that these people should also not have the ability to send PMs. There are examples of users PMing people with their opinions then, because they don't allow PMs, they don't have to deal with the response. It is very annoying when you are sent something ludicrous (which even contains a question!) yet can't respond.

    Is this abuse of the system on the part of the sender or just part and parcel of the function?

    Basically I'm suggesting an all or nothing system with regard to PMs.

    totally understand your frustration xavi. feel the pm system should be removed from those who feel one-way communication is fair. don't understand the mentality of those who would ask a question knowing you are unable to reply. suspect those doing it don't really understand how the pm system works. can't help feeling the site would be better off without them.


  • Options
    #8
    witnessmenow
    Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭witnessmenow


    Maybe its because its quite early, but i had to read this thread several times before I understood what was going on!

    Would it be possible to allow people to reply to PMs received from people with blocked incoming pms? Also should mods always be allowed PM someone?


  • Options
    #9
    Kiera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,130 ✭✭✭✭Kiera


    I think if someone has theirs turned off they should not be able to send pm's. Simples :)


  • Options
    #10
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    Xavi6 wrote: »
    Basically having it so that the reply function works.

    Yeah, I see what you are saying.

    This is probably more one for Conor and Ross than an Admin, tbh.


  • Options
    #11
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Kiera wrote: »
    I think if someone has theirs turned off they should not be able to send pm's. Simples :)

    someone has theirs turned off, and interestingly, someone is now unable to send pm's.

    //taps nose knowingly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Kiera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,130 ✭✭✭✭Kiera


    tbh wrote: »
    someone has theirs turned off, and interestingly, someone is now unable to send pm's.

    //taps nose knowingly
    Woohoo someone actaully listened to me for once? :eek::D


  • Options
    #13
    Frisbee
    Registered Users Posts: 23,562 ✭✭✭✭Frisbee


    I'm with Xavi on this.

    It's very annoying getting a PM from someone where they go on a rant at you or have a moan etc and you are unable to reply because they have their PM's disabled.

    If you have incoming PM's blocked you should not have the ability to send PM's imo.


  • Options
    #14
    Aidric
    Registered Users Posts: 13,589 ✭✭✭✭Aidric


    tbh wrote: »
    suspect those doing it don't really understand how the pm system works.
    Abusing it more like.


  • Options
    #15
    witnessmenow
    Registered Users Posts: 7,014 ✭✭✭witnessmenow


    tbh wrote: »
    someone has theirs turned off, and interestingly, someone is now unable to send pm's.

    //taps nose knowingly

    I think i found a flaw in that...

    Witnessmenow allows pms

    Witnessmenow sends tbh a pm

    Witnessmenow now blocks Pms

    Witnessmenow repeats until he is permbanned


  • Options
    #16
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,846 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    It's like a lot of things really. It has been in place for years with very little reported problems as far as I can tell, but it is only when someone abuses the system for their own gains and point scoring that it becomes an issue. I would imagine that if a user is abusing it they will be pulled up at some point or another on it, so to punish a majority who use it correctly for the actions of a few is unfair, although I do agree that the manner in which a recently departed user used this feature would be really annoying. Thankfully I wasn't in the circle of those being PM'd though.

    In other words, if the system itself isn't the problem, remove those who would abuse it beyond reason.


  • Options
    #17
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    So if you have PMs turned off but send a PM to someone, they should be allowed to send one back? When do they respond? And what's to stop them sending 50 back?

    I understand why this would be annoying, but if someone has disabled the ability to receive PMs, then they're clearly just a mouth and you can disregard whatever it is they've said. It's a private conversation, you can declare yourself the "winner" if you like, who cares?

    Any solution basically seems unworkable. If you disable their ability to send PMs, there's an easy way around it - enable PMs, send PM, disable PMs. If you allow PMs on a reply/respond basis then you're setting it up for tit-for-tats, and you might also have legal difficulty;

    That is if someone has specifically said, "I do not wish to receive private messages", but it's allowed in certain circumstances, then you're expressly ignore that request and you could find yourself in trouble for sending messages when the user has expressed a wish to not receive any.

    You could consider it a slight kink in privacy/data laws which allows someone to send something but expressely deny the recipient the right of reply.


  • Options
    #18
    Kiera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,130 ✭✭✭✭Kiera


    seamus wrote: »

    I understand why this would be annoying, but if someone has disabled the ability to receive PMs, then they're clearly just a mouth and you can disregard whatever it is they've said. It's a private conversation, you can declare yourself the "winner" if you like, who cares?

    Any solution basically seems unworkable. If you disable their ability to send PMs, there's an easy way around it - enable PMs, send PM, disable PMs. If you allow PMs on a reply/respond basis then you're setting it up for tit-for-tats, and you might also have legal difficulty;

    Or there could be a time limit. As in: if someone sends a pm, they cannot change their preferences back to "not receive pm's" for 24 hours? Is that too much hassle for the tech guys? I'm not up on all that tech stuff.


  • Options
    #19
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    I support this. There's nothing more annoying than a jumped up Pm of back seat modding then when you go to reply with a GTFO you find out you can't reply. If it weren't the interwebz, you'd want to punch them in the face. :pac:

    If you don't allow people to reply then you don't deserve to send, simple. If the user has their settings that only mods & admins can Pm them then they should only be allowed Pm mods and Admin.


  • Options
    #20
    Xavi6
    Registered Users Posts: 40,861 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    seamus wrote: »
    So if you have PMs turned off but send a PM to someone, they should be allowed to send one back?

    Most definitely. Why shouldn't they be? You have engaged in an interaction with them.
    And what's to stop them sending 50 back?

    Nothing, but if you're so PM paranoid that you have them turned off then I presume you would be selective with who you do send them to.
    That is if someone has specifically said, "I do not wish to receive private messages", but it's allowed in certain circumstances, then you're expressly ignore that request and you could find yourself in trouble for sending messages when the user has expressed a wish to not receive any.

    But the reply button would only be active when that person has made contact first, i.e. initiated the PMing.

    Straight up, new PMs could still be blocked but if you choose to send one then why shouldn't you receive one back?


  • Options
    #21
    Imposter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,666 ✭✭✭Imposter


    Why not report all PM's where you can't reply if you feel the user is abusing the system?

    Or if a reply is not possible then do so on thread and ask the user to only reply on thread or their PM's will be published for all to see!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    Imposter wrote: »
    Why not report all PM's where you can't reply if you feel the user is abusing the system?

    Or if a reply is not possible then do so on thread and ask the user to only reply on thread or their PM's will be published for all to see!
    There's no punishment for trolling via Pm.


  • Options
    #23
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Xavi6 wrote: »
    Straight up, new PMs could still be blocked but if you choose to send one then why shouldn't you receive one back?
    Because you don't want one?

    On the face of it, yes if someone says something to you then logically it would make sense that you can respond, but you can't stop them from sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalalala". Sometimes people are just jerks (to paraphrase the Simpsons) and if you receive a PM from the kind of person who fires one off and decides they don't want to hear what you have to say, then stick them on ignore and go on with life.

    Obligatory pic:
    http://xkcd.com/386/
    This isn't anything bad about you - it's natural to want to respond and vindicate yourself, even when it's a private conversation, but sometimes you just have to call a prick a prick and disregard what they say as inconsequential arse gas. Responding only provides value to their previously worthless opinion.

    In other words, I don't think this is a big enough issue to spend precious technical resources on, considering the amount of dev which would be needed to address it.

    The smallest/most reasonable suggestion was above, whereby you only allow someone to change their PM on/off option once a day/week/month. But I can see even that being a wee bit fiddly.


  • Options
    #24
    Tallon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,569 ✭✭✭✭Tallon


    Bonito wrote: »
    There's no punishment for trolling via Pm.

    Yes there is, as long as it's reported...


  • Options
    #25
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    It does strike me as strange that one can send PMs but also have the choice to decide whether they receive them or not.

    Not exactly fair IMO.


  • Options
    #26
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Would it be possible just to make a tailored block list on whom you don't want PMs from?


  • Options
    #27
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,726 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I just always assumed you couldnt receive PMs from anyone on your ignore list, there shouldnt really be a carte blanche on it.

    Similarly I always assumed you wouldn't be able to PM someone on your ignore list.


  • Options
    #28
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    Tallon wrote: »
    Yes there is, as long as it's reported...
    I've reported a trolling Pm before. Nothing was done about it. Gordon said (as far as he knew) there was no punishment for it and to just ignore the user.


  • Options
    #29
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Bonito wrote: »
    I've reported a trolling Pm before. Nothing was done about it. Gordon said (as far as he knew) there was no punishment for it and to just ignore the user.

    :confused:

    Are you telling the full story here? I've reported troll-like PMs before and people have been sitebanned.


  • Options
    #30
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    Des wrote: »
    :confused:

    Are you telling the full story here? I've reported troll-like PMs before and people have been sitebanned.
    Pretty much the whole story without too much detail. Well I thought it was something else at the start. (I have a helpdesk thread about it.) Then the Admins cleared it up as nothing more than trolling via the Pm system and just ignore it.

    *shrug*

    Not really bothered, wasn't a massive deal TBH but I guess everything is treated case by case and not by definitive labels.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Oh, I remember now, from reading that HD thread, it did seem like a pretty weird case. I'd have named and shamed the person who PMd me in that instance.


Advertisement